Toggle sidebar

CNN or The Onion?

Absolutely meaningless data. What is this supposed to tell us?

The Communist News Network strikes again...

Q 1 - You don't approve of Bush's plans for the inauguration, do you?
Answer - well...
Okay, I'll take that as a no.

Q 2 - You don't think that the inauguration will help heal our divided nation, do you?
Answer - what?
Another no, excellent

Q 3 - How much has Bush divided the country?
Answer - I don't think...
Don't worry about it. I'll put you down as undecided.

Q 4 - You hate Bush too, right?
Answer - No
Sorry, I didn't hear you. Must have said yes...
 
Apparently, this story was co-written by George Soros and Michael Moore.

Four More Years of Bush Makes the World Anxious
PARIS (Reuters) - The rest of the world will be watching with anxiety when President Bush (news - web sites) is inaugurated Thursday for a second time, fearing the most powerful man on the planet may do more harm than good.
Click to expand...
It's like they anticipate Bush to unleash the hounds of hell upon the planet once he is sworn in.
 
The left has some pretty dang stupid ideas, but the left is pretty much out of power and harmless.

The right also has some pretty dang stupid ideas, and they're getting crazier by the day, and they're in control of everything. Which do you think we ought to be concerned about right now?

What we need is a different direction.
 
Piglet said:
The left has some pretty dang stupid ideas, but the left is pretty much out of power and harmless.
Click to expand...

This sort of assumption causes one to skate on thin ice.

Democrats may be in poor shape, and may even croak. But the New Left generally around the world is as sprightly as ever. This neo-liberalism sprang into being at the fall of communism --- which until that very moment had been the inspiration of our native leftists. Indeed, the dogmas of St. Karl Marx had become the religious focus of many nations from Africa to Europe to Asia to Cuba.

Since communism had become a bad word world-wide, its steadfast adherents drifted into other organizations, from Nader's Green Party, to congeries of eco-fanatics, to anti-globalists, to academic and legal organizations. Instead of praising and promoting the joys of workers' paradises like the fallen Soviet Union, the neo-tactic became an all-out assault on capitalism, large corporations and especially the United States, the chief exponent of both capitalism and global free trade. At the moment its prime focus is attacking America on the issue of Iraq.

Primary weakness of this New Left has been its inability to tout a replacement for capitalism, other than the worn-out tenents of communism or socialism. But be assured they will come up with something. It will have a statist and bureaucratic foundation. I suspect China --- where a rigid socialist dictatorship is camouflaged with a facade of capitalism --- may become their new poster boy.

But be equally assured, whatever siren song they devise it will be picked up by their useful parakeets in this country and cheeped to the skies. Our homegrown lefties are in confusion at the moment, awaiting marching orders.
 
Last edited:
Pachydermatous said:
This sort of assumption causes one to skate on thin ice.

Democrats may be in poor shape, and may even croak. But the New Left generally around the world is as sprightly as ever. This neo-liberalism sprang into being at the fall of communism --- which until that very moment had been the inspiration of our native leftists. Indeed, the dogmas of St. Karl Marx had become the religious focus of many nations from Africa to Europe to Asia to Cuba.

Since communism had become a bad word world-wide, its steadfast adherents drifted into other organizations, from Nader's Green Party, to congeries of eco-fanatics, to anti-globalists, to academic and legal organizations. Instead of praising and promoting the joys of workers' paradises like the fallen Soviet Union, the neo-tactic became an all-out assault on capitalism, large corporations and especially the United States, the chief exponent of both capitalism and global free trade. At the moment its prime focus is attacking America on the issue of Iraq.

Primary weakness of this New Left has been its inability to tout a replacement for capitalism, other than the worn-out tenents of communism or socialism. But be assured they will come up with something. It will have a statist and bureaucratic foundation. I suspect China --- where a rigid socialist dictatorship is camouflaged with a facade of capitalism --- may become their new poster boy.

But be equally assured, whatever siren song they devise it will be picked up by their useful parakeets in this country and cheeped to the skies. Our homegrown lefties are in confusion at the moment, awaiting marching orders.
Click to expand...

i can't tell if this is one of your usual caricatures or you're being serious. you don't mean to say that most socialists and social democrats in the west have been sitting around in cccp tee shirts--and now people's republic of china tees-- scratching their heads trying to think up replacements for capitalism? in fact, as i've heard the term used, neoliberalism is an economic perspective very much embracing capitalism.
 
So, do "neoliberal" and "neoconservative" have any actual meaning, other than taking reasonable ideas and driving them into the lunatic fringe?

Used to be, liberal meant FDR and JFK and conservative meant Barry Goldwater and Eisenhower, and you could pretty much live with either of them. If any of them looked at what their respective political parties have become today, they'd either burst into laughter or stagger out to vomit. Is that because our ideologies got stuck with a neo- on the front?
 
blackumbrella said:
i can't tell if this is one of your usual caricatures or you're being serious. you don't mean to say that most socialists and social democrats in the west have been sitting around in cccp tee shirts--and now people's republic of china tees-- scratching their heads trying to think up replacements for capitalism? in fact, as i've heard the term used, neoliberalism is an economic perspective very much embracing capitalism.
Click to expand...

I think where you have wandered off the reservation, chief, is in use of the the word "liberal." In international economics it does mean free-trade capitalism, as opposed to the statist philosophy that trade must be regulated by some bureaucratic body or by high tariffs. But in this country "liberal" has taken on much baggage. It often refers to one who views tend in the opposite direction, one who cleaves to socialist thought, or one inherently opposed to or suspicious of capitalism.

In some areas I don't blame you for being confused, because the people I'm talking about are themselves so screwed up that they may never come unscrewed. It runs like this:

1. Communism's flop around the world left a host of its believers ideologically unemployed. They did not just disappear. Unable to control their hormonal "progressivism," they filtered into a host of ostensibly do-gooder organizations, crusades and governments. Since the title of "communist" is no longer socially acceptable in large expanses of the world they have assumed the coloration and job discriptions of these new occupations.

2. Likewise, it is no longer politically correct (love that term) or profitable to promote socialism by touting "workers' paradises" like the old Soviet Union, or North Vietnam, Or Cuba, or the current Vietnam, or any number of African States (Zimbabwe leaps to mind) who have embraced Marxism and made a disaster of it. There is only China remaining with much positive to boast of, and their capitalist-caper is too short-lived to be convincing. So our neo-commies (New Left, whatever) have changed tactics to negativism. To continue the struggle against their traditional enemy, they have adopted an attack mode --- assaults on the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, globalized free trade itself, and above all on the United States, chief exponent of both democracy and liberal free trade.

3. At this point you should be able to connect the dots yourself. If I keep typing this will become a book. If you are still at sea, I can suggest some titles.
 
Last edited:
Piglet said:
So, do "neoliberal" and "neoconservative" have any actual meaning, other than taking reasonable ideas and driving them into the lunatic fringe?

Used to be, liberal meant FDR and JFK and conservative meant Barry Goldwater and Eisenhower, and you could pretty much live with either of them. If any of them looked at what their respective political parties have become today, they'd either burst into laughter or stagger out to vomit. Is that because our ideologies got stuck with a neo- on the front?
Click to expand...

Piglet, said Christopher Robin, the abuse of prefixes and suffixes represents a titillating maturbatory activity of our politicians and journalists today. I think the latest orgasm was touched by Democrats with "neoconservative," a crude attempt to imply that Bush's people were newbies on the block, unlike genuine conservatives such as Ike and Goldwater. This left it up to journalists to define a "neoconservative," which some have done as unreliable, untrustworthy and ditzy. Retaliation produced neoliberal, neo-Democrat and New Left, for the same reasons. The pejorative nature of "neo" may hale from phrases like "new rich," designating someone who hasn't paid his dues.

The above is just my personal opinion. But massive daily assaults on the English language make it possible we may some day all speak computerese. :biggrin:
 
Pachydermatous said:
I think where you have wandered off the reservation, chief, is in use of the the word "liberal." In international economics it does mean free-trade capitalism, as opposed to the statist philosophy that trade must be regulated by some bureaucratic body or by high tariffs. But in this country "liberal" has taken on much baggage. It often refers to one who views tend in the opposite direction, one who cleaves to socialist thought, or one inherently opposed to or suspicious of capitalism.

In some areas I don't blame you for being confused, because the people I'm talking about are themselves so screwed up that they may never come unscrewed. It runs like this:
Click to expand...


so it's your understanding too then that, in the global, outside-the-reservation sense of the word, neoliberalism is predominantly an economic term not at all antonymous with neoconservatism, a predominantly political term. i'm glad you can see how one might be confused. in fact i'm a little confused by your usage of left, liberal, socialist, and communist as well. it seems like more than a little conflation is going on, when in fact, not all leftists would call themselves socialist, and only a small portion of those idolized the ussr in the manner you describe, which is why your description is a caricature--unless you're talking about ultra-liberals and not 'native leftists' which implies most anyone not conservative
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back