• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Leftism has invaded Liberalism

Started by The General, September 25, 2012, 11:46:34 PM

Quote from: Ben Shockley on September 26, 2012, 06:08:10 AM
... What we have here is actually sensational fodder for the "Coast to Coast" part of the forum; specifically exobiology and alien visitations.

What we have in posts like those above is the very stealthy yet unmistakable announcement of alien life on Earth.   It has to be.   The beings writing that stuff can't be from the same planet as me...

I salute your attempts to be conciliatory and find common ground with these beings.   But I invite you to remember your sci-fi movies.   Remember what happened in the 1953 "War Of The Worlds" to the little party that initially approached the Martian craft carrying a white flag?   Remember "Independence Day" and what the alien said was their goal vis-a-vis humanity?

Okay, maybe it's not that bad.   Try "Alien Nation" or "District 9."   Forget rapprochement -- because the aliens are pretty clearly not interested in close, friendly relations and certainly not in assimilation to the surrounding civilization-- and just give these creatures a "reservation" where they can conduct their business according to their odd customs and perceptions.

But for gods' sake, keep 'em penned up good and tight!   Because, remember another movie-- the 1968 "Planet Of The Apes," when Cornelius read from the ancient scroll regarding "the beast, Man:"  "he will make a waste land of your home as well as his."   Applies to alien right-wingers too...

Yew left out George Noory's favorite  Twilight Zone episode 'To Serve Man'.  I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that it really wasn't a cookbook - that was just Rod Serling using literary license to make the story more exciting.

Quote from: onan on September 26, 2012, 04:24:51 AM
I find this tedious...

Well of course.  The Libs and the Left can make any claim - no matter how outrageous, no matter how untrue or absurd - they can call anyone that disagrees with them anythig they like - nothing is ever too low, or beyond the pale in any setting - and everyone just accepts it with no criticism whatsoever.   For example an otherwise normal person can be sitting in the lunchroom at work and out of the blue suggest we 'eat the rich', or suggest we abolish religion, or claim half the nation is racist, or that we should immediately adopt full on Marxism, and no one will bat an eye.  They can use the most abusive language possible, and it's always ok - then back to the discussion about purses and cosmetics or analysis of last nights ballgame..


But let someone say, print, or post someting that calls out the Democrats... lookout!  Because the Ds are, you know, well meaning, and everyone else is evil.




Quote from: The General on September 26, 2012, 03:59:53 PM
My contention is not that google is biased.  It is simply a non-biased way of seeing what people are saying in blogs, articles, news pieces, etc.  Think of it as taking a snap shot of the entire internet. 

But you are proving my point.  Your bias shows when you infer that those on the left are by definition not extreme.  I'm saying that extremes exist on both sides.  I admit, in today's political landscape, I could be categorized as extreme right wing.  But so would JFK.
Or perhaps the google results indicate that the vast majority of people identify themselves as to the left of what passes for modern conservatism.  Perhaps that is why the  "out of touch" label seems to stick to so many Republicans.  I think that your non-biased snapshot is very telling.  If the numbers skew 5-1, maybe the 1 is, by definition, extreme.

The General

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on September 26, 2012, 06:28:04 PM
Or perhaps the google results indicate that the vast majority of people identify themselves as to the left of what passes for modern conservatism.  Perhaps that is why the  "out of touch" label seems to stick to so many Republicans.  I think that your non-biased snapshot is very telling.  If the numbers skew 5-1, maybe the 1 is, by definition, extreme.
Not according to every survey I've seen.  For example...

Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx

Quote from: The General on September 26, 2012, 06:41:14 PM
Not according to every survey I've seen.  For example...

Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.



That looks like a reasonable breakdown, actually.  I suspect that the election will look an awful a lot like that, with the vast majority of moderates voting democrat.  I might be projecting my own biases on that, but I think that most moderates would view the current Republican Party as, gulp, extreme in their social conservatism.  I know I would vote for the Romney who governed Mass., but the one who counts mentions of God in presidential speeches - not so much.


Quote from: The General on September 26, 2012, 03:59:53 PM
My contention is not that google is biased.  It is simply a non-biased way of seeing what people are saying in blogs, articles, news pieces, etc.  Think of it as taking a snap shot of the entire internet...

The term 'Extreme Right Wing' is used often by the 'mainstream media'.   I don't ever remember hearing the term 'Exteme Left Wing' used by them to identify anyone or any group.

Just another reason I call them the Phony Media.

Pragmier

Quote from: The General on September 26, 2012, 06:41:14 PM

Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx

Something to consider might be the difference between living a "conservative" life and wanting to force that life on others by enacting laws. Take for example 2 equally religious people who don't approve of abortion. One wants to inject his religion into politics and outlaw abortion. They may both identify conservative but vote entirely different.

onan

Quote from: Paper*Boy on September 26, 2012, 05:51:49 PM

Well of course.  The Libs and the Left can make any claim - no matter how outrageous, no matter how untrue or absurd - they can call anyone that disagrees with them anythig they like - nothing is ever too low, or beyond the pale in any setting - and everyone just accepts it with no criticism whatsoever.   For example an otherwise normal person can be sitting in the lunchroom at work and out of the blue suggest we 'eat the rich', or suggest we abolish religion, or claim half the nation is racist, or that we should immediately adopt full on Marxism, and no one will bat an eye.  They can use the most abusive language possible, and it's always ok - then back to the discussion about purses and cosmetics or analysis of last nights ballgame..


But let someone say, print, or post someting that calls out the Democrats... lookout!  Because the Ds are, you know, well meaning, and everyone else is evil.

You really do need to get outside your bubble. I can assure you, at least where I live nothing could be further from the truth. I don't know what media you listen to but unless I go to left radio on Sirius I have no clue as to what you speak. And my point isn't an attack on you, I am saying that as a nation we are hardly center of right or left. I think we are more to the right. I think you see it differently. compared to other free societies we are certainly more right of center.

stevesh

Quote from: onan on September 26, 2012, 10:04:09 PM
I am saying that as a nation we are hardly center of right or left. I think we are more to the right. I think you see it differently. compared to other free societies we are certainly more right of center.

I'd agree with that. One thing that makes me think so is the fact that in order to match the lunatic fringe screeds on, say,  The Huffington Post, on the right, you can't just go to Fox News. It takes a trip all the way to World Net Daily or even Alex Jones' infowars.com. That suggests to me that the mainstream is a lot closer to the right than left.

HAL 9000

Quote from: Paper*Boy on September 26, 2012, 07:13:40 PMThe term 'Extreme Right Wing' is used often by the 'mainstream media'.   I don't ever remember hearing the term 'Exteme Left Wing' used by them to identify anyone or any group.

Or another; I always hear, "Right-wing evangelicals," but never hear, "Left-wing atheists."

Quote from: HAL 9000 on September 27, 2012, 04:45:30 AM
Or another; I always hear, "Right-wing evangelicals," but never hear, "Left-wing atheists."
True.  But there are pretty much no "left wing evangelicals", but lots of "right wing atheists".



Ben Shockley

Quote from: Paper*Boy on September 26, 2012, 07:13:40 PM
The term 'Extreme Right Wing'  is used often by the 'mainstream media'.
You hear a lot about murders and tornadoes  in the "mainstream media," because 1) those things exist, and 2) they have a pretty negative impact on society.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on September 26, 2012, 07:13:40 PM
I don't ever remember hearing the term 'Exteme Left Wing'  used by them to identify anyone or any group.
You also don't hear much about unicorns  and fairies  in the "mainstream media," because, even if they exist, they don't seem to have much impact on society.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on September 26, 2012, 07:13:40 PM
Just another reason I call them the Phony Media.
Equally phony for never mentioning nor bitching about unicorns and fairies, no?

Ben Shockley

Quote from: Eddie Coyle on September 26, 2012, 10:37:45 AM
             Dateline: About 5 months from now...
Good sarcasm as usual, Coyle.

Quote from: The General on September 26, 2012, 11:17:37 AM
Eddie, I enjoyed your parody of my paranoia.
I salute the General for recognizing and admitting it.   Now try to do something about it.

Quote from: Zircon on September 26, 2012, 11:49:36 AM
An excellent "futurist" account Eddie...
Zircon, on the other hand, thinks Coyle is an accurate, prescient remote viewer, and the sarcasm is totally lost.    Look for (the guy behind) Zircon to be in other fora mis-citing Coyle's sketch as "predictions by every political scientist in the country."

The General

Quote from: Ben Shockley on September 27, 2012, 10:51:43 AM

I salute the General for recognizing and admitting it.   Now try to do something about it.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me. :)

Ben Shockley

Quote from: Paper*Boy on September 26, 2012, 05:44:13 PM
Yew left out George Noory's favorite  Twilight Zone episode 'To Serve Man'...
I guess that makes me a beyud, beyud meyun.
Ya see, that's from Georgie's second-favorite ep --which he only learned about when his Team prepped him for his first meeting with some guy named Mumy, who Georgie was initially eager to have on the show because fantabulist Georgie actually expected him to be a living walking Mummy.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on September 26, 2012, 05:44:13 PM
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that it really wasn't a cookbook - that was just Rod Serling using literary license to make the story more exciting.
Again-- news to Georgie.   He's had Team members out actually looking for that "cookbook," in the same shops where folks look for the "Necronomicon."

MV/Liberace!

Quote from: onan on September 26, 2012, 04:24:51 AM
I find this tedious. Do either of you, General and Paper*Boy, ever look in a mirror? Did it ever cross your minds that a very similar post could be made for conservatism?

Change every use of liberal for conservative alter a few other words and we have the same sentiment but this time bashing conservatism.

It isn't so much I disagree as,  couldn't you be a bit more fair in your observation? Do either of you think any of the conservative "icons" from 1950 to 1990 would not be apoplectic with today's conservative? Hell if Reagan were running today I don't believe the conservative party would welcome him.


Addendum:


Who said this?


guess you think you're pretty smart or sumpthin', eh?

MV/Liberace!

Quote from: The General on September 26, 2012, 10:03:55 AM
Onan, I agree with you.  The whole paradigm has shifted.  Bush was a liberal.  A big government liberal.


he sure was.  he literally destroyed 20 years of what i consider to be progress, and people like rush and hannity "carried water" for him the entire time (rush admitted as much), making excuses for his expansion of government and actually cheerleading it in some cases (see the formation of the fucking department of homeland insecurity).

Ben Shockley

Quote from: MV on September 27, 2012, 02:42:12 PM
...people like rush and hannity "carried water" for [Bush I] the entire time (rush admitted as much), making excuses for his expansion of government and actually cheerleading it in some cases (see the formation of the fucking department of homeland insecurity).
In admitting that, you go a long way toward admitting that Limbaugh and Hannity and other talkers of their ilk are not "movement conservatives" like I think a lot of "ordinary conservative folks" want to listen to and try to believe that the talkers are.

Those guys are cheerleaders for a team, which wants to be "in power."   That team is about corporate money, and "political power" is their vehicle for securing their money and helping make more of it.  They happen to have settled for now on "the Republican Party" as their vehicle for scoring points and maneuvering for positions of power.   The policies that that particular political party runs on every 2-4 years mean very little to the guys calling the shots, except to whatever extent that "policy issues" may matter in getting into power, or keeping in power, a person who will help them.   I believe that the talkers like Limbaugh et al really work for the big-money boys, and only take specific positions regarding "policy issues" when those become a concern of the big-money boys.   Then the talkers take exactly the position that either they are directly told to take, or which experience has shown them will earn them the best reward from the corporate types.

Bush I was the ideal "team player" who the big money boys could control.   They wanted him in, and so the orders went out to the talkers to back Bush, no matter what.   Again, the specifics of policies (beyond anything to do with helping big corporations) didn't / don't matter: the big boys just don't want "their guy" weakened in any way.

MV/Liberace!

Quote from: Ben Shockley on September 27, 2012, 03:26:20 PM
In admitting that, you go a long way toward admitting that Limbaugh and Hannity and other talkers of their ilk are not "movement conservatives" like I think a lot of "ordinary conservative folks" want to listen to and try to believe that the talkers are.


people like rush (and to a lesser degree hannity who is a hack and was late to the meeting anyway) would love themselves to be perceived as heading a "movement" of sorts, when in reality they are the establishment and they represent it well.  i think their listeners have slowly begun to detect this, particularly after 8 years of bush.  if you have as much experience listening to rush as i do, the overall tone and approach his supposedly like minded callers take seems to have changed drastically since the 1990s.  with the evolution of politics over the last decade and the establishment republican party's evolving positions within those changes, i think it's getting harder for rush's show to find conservative callers who believe "rush is fighting for the good guys" every time he defends the republican party.


to further explain what i'm referring to, i give you the tea party movement.  what started out as a LIBERTARIAN movement (not a bunch of bible belt moralist bullshit) with ron paul as the catalyst was co-opted by people like rush and entities like fox news who otherwise have mocked and derided the very man who was responsible for it all.  they've positioned themselves as figureheads of that movement when in fact they've been the biggest hurdles to what that movement represented.  the tea party movement was a response to the establishment ass sucking of people LIKE rush and hannity.  slowly and incrementally, i started seeing news outlets with talking heads who were self proclaimed tea partiers talking about issues like abortion and gay marriage.  what!!??!!  those types of issues are COMPLETELY NOT what the tea party movement was about.  the mainstream media's use of "tea partiers" who insisted on talking about these issues was deliberate and very effective in eroding its true origins.  today, there are far fewer people who are willing to categorize themselves as such because they'd just as soon proclaim an allegiance to the klan.  well played.


i'm kinda tired.  hope this post made sense because i don't feel like it was very well written, but fuck it.

onan

Quote from: MV on September 27, 2012, 02:33:47 PM

guess you think you're pretty smart or sumpthin', eh?
Sometimes I do, other times not so much. But thank for asking.

analog kid

Quote from: stevesh on September 27, 2012, 03:59:49 AM
I'd agree with that. One thing that makes me think so is the fact that in order to match the lunatic fringe screeds on, say,  The Huffington Post, on the right, you can't just go to Fox News. It takes a trip all the way to World Net Daily or even Alex Jones' infowars.com. That suggests to me that the mainstream is a lot closer to the right than left.

In order to match the crazy on a website, you have to go to another website. Salient point.

Quote from: MV on September 27, 2012, 03:46:38 PM

people like rush (and to a lesser degree hannity who is a hack and was late to the meeting anyway) would love themselves to be perceived as heading a "movement" of sorts, when in reality they are the establishment and they represent it well.  i think their listeners have slowly begun to detect this, particularly after 8 years of bush.  if you have as much experience listening to rush as i do, the overall tone and approach his supposedly like minded callers take seems to have changed drastically since the 1990s.  with the evolution of politics over the last decade and the establishment republican party's evolving positions within those changes, i think it's getting harder for rush's show to find conservative callers who believe "rush is fighting for the good guys" every time he defends the republican party...

I hardly ever get a chance to listen to Rush or Sean Hannity.  Who has time in the middle of the day.  I've liked what I've heard though.

I've heard both criticize Bush II lots of times - for the spending, for the way the wars were conducted, and Rush criticize Bush I back before Hannity was on the air.  They were pretty rough on McCain too.  I've even heard their disapointments with Reagan.  Lots of other Rs.  I have to believe they were critical on other occasions when I wasn't listening.  But they do defend them against unfair attacks.  They were totally on that side of things during elections when the opponents were Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama - and so was I.

None of that meant they were in the tank for the corporate Republican elitists or anyone else.  I'd say they are more like me, choosing the lesser of the 2 evils at times, and pointing out the reasons we shouldn't elect the greater of the two evils.


Quote from: Paper*Boy on September 26, 2012, 07:13:40 PM
The term 'Extreme Right Wing' is used often by the 'mainstream media'.   I don't ever remember hearing the term 'Exteme Left Wing' used by them to identify anyone or any group...

Quote from: Ben Shockley on September 27, 2012, 10:41:12 AM
You hear a lot about murders and tornadoes  in the "mainstream media," because 1) those things exist, and 2) they have a pretty negative impact on society.

You also don't hear much about unicorns  and fairies  in the "mainstream media," because, even if they exist, they don't seem to have much impact on society.


So when a Leprechaun (?) or whatever he is such as 'The Rev' Al Sharpton whips up a mob into a fury to the point they murder shopkepers and Jews, are you saying that's not extreme, or that it doesn't have a big enough impact?

How about the Unicorns over at ELF or PETA where they spike trees or follow people to their homes for the purpose of attacking or intimidatng them?

Haven't the Fairies at Occupy caused enough trouble to qualify as 'impacting' society?  The murders, the rapes, the attack on cops, the burning, looting, dog bites, drug dealing, taking public parks for themselves?  It wasn't enough when some of them were caught red-handed on their way to blowing up a bridge?

What sort of imaginative creatures are the 'Rev' Wright and his Black Liberation American-hating colleagues - the ones filling black churches with race hate, or 60s terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers profiting on their connection with Obama out on the speaking circuit gloating about their terrorism and confessing they are just sorry they didn't do more?  Have you read some of the comments of Valerie Jarrett, David Axlerod, Vann Jones, Rahm Emanuel?  How about some of the jucier tidbits from the the Progressive Caucus or the Congressional Black Caucus?

Are you kidding me?  I could type until my fingers are bleeding pointing out who the Left-wing extremists are and what they are doing to qualify.  Does Kim Jong-Un count, I'd imagine he's built up quite the body count by now, or how about his father and grandfather - or are we keeping this just to extreme Left-wing Americans?   To date Left-wing extremists like Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and the Kims are responsible for what, 150 million deaths?  Not enough to qualify as extreme?  Or to impact society?  Maybe they were actually Right-wingers?  Or was what they did necessary with understandable 'mistakes' made?

Just face it - to the Phony Media nothing the Left can do is 'Extreme', it's simply necessary to move us along.  Just 'Bumps in the road', as Obama woud say.  But the rest of us recognize it.

By the way, why don't you post a list of who you think they Right-wing extremists are and what they've done. 

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod