What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[swansont]

 

SwansonT,

 

The right to lifers have a point. A fetus does not have no rights, just because it is attached to its mother.

The choice advocates have a point. A woman's body belongs to her, and is not somebody else's property because a fertilized egg is in there.

 

I never mentioned abortion as an issue. I mentioned birth control and planned parenthood.

[tar]

Overtone,

 

Well, as SwansonT makes me realize, certain planks of the Republican party are linked to religious doctrine and not secular, properly considered, rational, "all beliefs considered", type arguments.

 

In this regard, and in the sense that the Tea Party is strong in their need to cross the church and state line on several issues, and in regards to the way some Tea Party followers seem to be racist and homophobic, I tend to place these leanings in the "fringe", fundamentalist area of the party, and not at the core. These actors are to be discouraged from following anti-constitutional routes, in terms of their insertion of church in state, and intolerance of people of other beliefs.

 

There have been times in the last 40 years where the democratic party was controlled by radicals and extremists. Still the democratic party "panders" to feminist, black, communist, anti-war, anti-business, and gay constituents.

 

Taking any faction of either major party and characterizing them as the "core" of the party is somewhat dangerous. You are likely to be wrong.

 

Regards, TAR

[DrP]

It doesn't 'Pander' to them... it just recognises they have the same rights as all other humans... rather than being anti them. That is such a poor argument.. as an outside observer and follower of the thread - you lost this argument pages ago.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

I know, but part of the problem some people have with planned parenthood, is the abortion part. They are against abortion, based on the guidance of their religion, and would rather their tax money not fund it. They may or may not believe in birth control.

 

Regards, TAR

[DrP]

what has their religion got to do with anything? Religion and politics are supposed to be seperate

[swansont]

There have been times in the last 40 years where the democratic party was controlled by radicals and extremists.

Citation(s) needed.

 

Still the democratic party "panders" to feminist, black, communist, anti-war, anti-business, and gay constituents.

Define your use of "panders" here. The economy tends to do better under democratic presidents, and what is the problem in fighting for the rights of marginalized people?

[tar]

DrP,

 

OK, I lost the argument.

 

But I still maintain that it is important to "include" the religious right in the country.

 

As important as it is to "include" the communist, or the follower of Malcolm X.

 

When looking at the last 47 years, we would not be where we are, in terms of concern for our fellow man, without the religious right.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

I know, but part of the problem some people have with planned parenthood, is the abortion part. They are against abortion, based on the guidance of their religion, and would rather their tax money not fund it. They may or may not believe in birth control.

 

Regards, TAR

Their tax money doesn't fund abortions; that's already illegal. Also abortion is a small fraction of the services they provide. (3%, IIRC)(edit: yes, 3% http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money)

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

Who was in control of the Senate and the house, during the times of better economy? Was the economy on it way up or down when the president in question took office. Do people vote democrat when they are feeling good, trusting and open, and vote republican when they are feeling threatened?

 

Do you figure the tendency of the economy to be better under democratic presidents, is correlation, or causation?

 

Take the crash for instance. If subprime loans held by Fannie and Freddie, at the bequest of the people pushing for low income housing, undermined the mortgage backed security market, and the economy tanked as a result, having a subsequent commercial real estate downturn and defaults of prime mortgages and problems with leverage all over the system, how would you assign the blame or credit to the sitting president, as some of the causes of the situation were put in place by the last three administrations, who may have been of the other party, or where the congress may have been controlled by the other party?

 

Regards, TAR

SwansonT,

 

So which part of planned parenthood do you figure the controlling faction of Republicans find worth closing the government, to stop?

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

Take the crash for instance. If subprime loans held by Fannie and Freddie, at the bequest of the people pushing for low income housing, undermined the mortgage backed security market, and the economy tanked as a result, having a subsequent commercial real estate downturn and defaults of prime mortgages and problems with leverage all over the system, how would you assign the blame or credit to the sitting president, as some of the causes of the situation were put in place by the last three administrations, who may have been of the other party, or where the congress may have been controlled by the other party?

 

Regards, TAR

If they thought it was a problem, why didn't the GOP fix it when they had control (i.e. GW Bush's entire first term)? (not to mention that Fannie and Freddie were lagging participants in subprime loans, and only had a small contribution to the crisis that ensued https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Role_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac )

So which part of planned parenthood do you figure the controlling faction of Republicans find worth closing the government, to stop?

 

Regards, TAR

They're very vocal on this. They want to shut it down because of abortions, which are not funded by any federal dollars. The irony being that by eliminating contraceptive services, a much larger fraction of what PP does, they will actually increase the number of abortions. The statistics are clear — contraception is the best way to reduce the demand for abortion. But like in other policy decisions, they ignore the facts and try and impose an ideology that assumes something that is false is in fact the truth. Either that or they know it's false but pretend otherwise (e.g. trickle-down economics, abstinence-only, global warming, Obamacare destroying the economy, etc.)

 

Still waiting for some concrete examples of times in the last 40 years where the democratic party was controlled by radicals and extremists, and of specific examples of being anti-business, or why standing up for equality under the law is a bad thing.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

Why didn't "they" fix it?

 

That is my whole argument here. Whether there is a Republican or a Democrat in office, it is still "our" president sitting in the oval office. We are responsible for his/her mistakes, and the beneficiaries of his/her successes. The president is the leader of the whole country. He/she has to take care of the rich Republican Catholic, and the Democratic Baptist welfare mom in the ghetto.

 

The Fed has more to do with the economy than the president, and they are not supposed to be political. They are charged with worrying about employment and a stable growth rate.

 

If they make a mistake and cause a bubble or a downturn, it probably does not have much directly to do with who is in charge in the White House, or who is on the Supreme Court, or who is making the laws.

 

And that is what politics is about. Trying to "fix" a situation that has gotten out of control.

 

Years ago, I was trying to figure out my political leanings. Why I used to be a Democrat, yet registered Republican. I figured, that the county swings left and right like a pendulum. Too far left is flaky and dreamy and unrealistic (like the failed communes after the 60s). Too far right is oppressive and choking, under the thumb of some authoritarian rule (like the KKK.) So I figured, that what I like to do is lean against the movement of the pendulum. Dampen it, and try to have it keep from getting too extreme in one direction or the other.

 

But a concurrent realization that I made, was that my allegiance changed accordingly. Sometimes I was campaigning for McGovern, and sometimes I was voting for Bush. And in the 10,000 ft. view, that is what we all do. Sometimes the Red states take control, sometimes its Blue. So, either the population changes its mind, or the parties change their platforms, but the pendulum keeps swinging. The fringes are never satisfied, because as soon as they succeed in pulling the ship onto their course, EVERYBODY else is trying to turn the wheel back the other way.

 

So for Overtone to say that the republican party is guided by a core of wrong minded individuals, might be true at the moment, but it is not realistic to say that all Republican decisions for the last 47 years have been evil. And the things that any representative represents, are real components of our makeup, as a country. We are just as responsible for our countrymen (women) when the find a cure in a university, as when the make Meth in West Virginia. Neither is a result of just Republican or Democratic action or inaction. But certain things do cause other things. Unintended consequences. Like the meth in W. Virgina. Lots of folk in rural W. Virginia are on the dole. Perhaps this is part of the formula. Who knows. Control is important to people. When somebody else has power over you, most people do not like that. Who is oppressor and who is the victim, who is the master and who is the slave, who is the parent and who is the child, who is the ward and who is the benefactor, are very very important questions to humans, and families and states and countries, and thus important parts of politics, at all times.

 

I reserve the right, in this discussion to be advocate for the oppressed. Even if they are WASPS on occasion, or atheists, or Irish Roman Catholics. There are good people, of good judgement and good intentions, and fine intellect, sitting on both sides of the isle.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 29, 2015 by tar

[DrP]

QUOTE..".....concern for our fellow man without the religious right"

 

Are you saying then that there is no concern for our fellow man without religion? You may need to be scared of the threat of hell to make you concerned about others... A lot of people have a staunch moral code without some imaginary universal dictator to threaten them into it.

[tar]

DrP,

 

No I am not saying you need to be a believer to be good.

 

I am saying that one of the reasons we are good is because Moses told us the 10 things we were supposed to follow, and Jesus and Mohammed showed us. And these lessons and rules are written into our laws, reinforced at services, and lived in the activities of any number of charitable organizations.

 

It does not matter at this point, whether we believe the Pope is god's representative on Earth in a literal way, or a figurative way. The ideas of inclusion and charity and taking care of each other and being good, are already global.

 

Regards, TAR

DrP,

 

Probably important in this discussion, of what is problematic in the U.S. IS the fact that we were founded on Judeo-Christian values. Such values are built into our institutions and subsequently into our characters. There is thusly a possibility of a clash of civilizations, when West meets East or Middle East. We might, as a country, not like the way Muslims destroy religious icons, for instance. And Muslims might not like the way we in the West find it OK to hold graven images and make fun of Prophets, charge interest and believe in the father, son and holy ghost.

 

The separation of church and state that is important to us in the U.S. is not so important to Muslims, for instance, who view the idea of the Caliph as a person that rules you politically as well as guides you morally.

 

I think we need to heavily weigh the impact of religion on our moral code and subsequent behavior. And the fact that we are grounded in the Bible has to be accepted as fact. We are Patriarchal, Judgemental, and swift with the sword, as in the old testament, and loving and forgiving and sharing as in the New. We can not just discount our upbringing, both as people and as a nation.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

Why didn't "they" fix it?

 

That is my whole argument here. Whether there is a Republican or a Democrat in office, it is still "our" president sitting in the oval office. We are responsible for his/her mistakes, and the beneficiaries of his/her successes. The president is the leader of the whole country. He/she has to take care of the rich Republican Catholic, and the Democratic Baptist welfare mom in the ghetto.

"They" as in the people holding office, as opposed to everyone else, who are not empowered to pass legislation. If a particular situation was a problem (which it wasn't, in reality), why wasn't it fixed when there was no opposition?

 

And yes, the president is supposed to represent the interests of the whole country. But we have tax policies, passed by the right, that have been demonstrated to only benefit a select few (the rich), and yet they cling to the idea that this policy is best. It is clearly not beneficial to the bulk of the country. The right perpetuates the myth of the welfare queen as it tries to starve programs for people in need.

 

Still waiting for specific examples in support of your earlier nebulous claims.

[DrP]

Tar,

 

I agree - I actually like the teachings of Christianity and some of both our cultures are based on it... (some of it sucks though - like diminishing women and the not being able to have sex unless you are married BS that I inflicted on myself for years - what a dumb ass) - but to say your country was founded purely on it isn't true. It was founded on theft, murder, pilliage and genocide... where are the indigenous people now? How many are left and what say do they have in anything that goes on at all? This was only a few hundered years ago too - lol. Founded on Christian values my hat!

It says "do not lie" - Your biggest problem is here revealed - You can't stop lying to yourselves.

[John Cuthber]

... but to say your country was founded purely on it isn't true. It was founded on theft, murder, pilliage and genocide... where are the indigenous people now? How many are left and what say do they have in anything that goes on at all? This was only a few hundered years ago too - lol. Founded on Christian values my hat!

But those were Christian values.

Genesis 1:27 tells us

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

And, since the local population didn't look like us, there were not "man" in the eyes of the church.

So they fitted into the previous line in Genesis

" Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Man clearly had dominion over the locals who must have been some other sort of creature.

 

And then, of course, there's the slavery bit.

Perfectly in keeping with Christian values.

Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

[DrP]

Touche John, but that is OT not NT so I recon it's Judaism rather than Christianity. ;-)

[tar]

DrP,

 

I like the fact that we are trying to rectify the situation and remove the slavery and mastery, and male dominated nature of the Old Testament.

 

There are pluses and minuses in any situation however, and my point, or argument in this thread is not that humanism is the best or devil worship is the best or hedonism, or following the Buddha is best. Nor is my point that we should emulate the founding fathers, who owned slaves, were land owners and masters, and did not figure women were equal enough vote, nor that blacks were worth a whole vote. Yes, we took the place from its original inhabitants, but WE did that. Our forefathers, who were escaping British rule.

 

The fact that we are a land of immigrants was symbolically relived when the Pope asked to fly over the Statue on his way to JFK the other day.

 

On another thread, a while back we talked about the fact that the most intelligent and capable folk in the country are the ones that we follow. They are our bosses and heroes, representatives and leaders. They are also probably in the top 10 percent of intelligence, and or in the top 10 percent of capability and trustworthiness. "They" are also "our" leaders. The good ones have our best interests in mind, or at least their version of what our best interests are. We absolutely cannot do it, without our top 10 percent of capability and trustworthiness.

 

So we have two proposed 90-10 splits. I say 90 percent of us are good. I say 10 percent of us are the most capable and trustworthy that lead the nation. But that is two different 90-10 splits.

 

10 percent of the 10 percent that lead us, are not of good will. So 1 percent commit the graft and corruption, and 9 percent make sure the 1 percent go to jail.

 

But I would guess the graft and corruption is not limited to Democrats in Chicago politics, nor to an unscrupulous Bernie Madoff (whose political affiliation does not matter.)

 

Back of the envelope figuring would tell me that all republican leaders can not fit into the segment of the population that is smart enough to lead, and be of bad will.

Back of the envelope figuring would tell me that being a democratic leader would not insulate one from being of bad will.

 

This relates to the fathers of our country, in that we take from them the 90 percent of the stuff that makes sense, is workable and that is consistent with our general direction of what indeed is good, and we discard the 10 percent that is unworkable and is inconsistent with the very principles upon which the nation is founded.

 

And if you think about it, the biggest complaint I have with the religious right, is that they are not being very good Christians on some counts, and are not following the constitution (which was put together by WASP male slave owners).

 

Somewhere there we have to give the other side the benefit of the doubt, considering it is probably our brothers and sisters we are railing against.

 

Regards, TAR

I just thought of another back of the envelope figuring reality that is very important to this discussion. Each of us has that one little thing (at least) that they did when they were young, that was bad. There are close to 300 million of us. That is 300 million (at least) that have behaved in a manner that even they would consider is "bad". Say there was closer to 200 million of us 47 years ago and all 200 million did one bad thing. 180 million are generally of good will according to the theory, which means that 3 or 4 milllion bad acts per year were committed by people of good will over the last 47 years.

 

I would bet at least a buck fifty that all the bad acts in the last 47 years were not caused by Republican Leadership. Back of the envelope speaking, its not possible.

Edited September 29, 2015 by tar

[swansont]

But those were Christian values.

 

Theory vs practice. It's the difference between what politicians say when they're on the dais vs what they do when they aren't.

 

Also, "founded on Judeo-Christian values" is a lot closer to the truth than saying the US is a Christian nation.

 

edit: but a lot of these values are not exclusive to the Judeo-Christian population.

[Acme]

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

 

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

THOMAS JEFFERSON ON CHRISTIANITY & RELIGION

[tar]

Acme,

 

Good quote. But ultimately very realistic. That is, there is a analogy between following the Lord, and following the lord of the land. The despot or leader, the Pope in the Catholic Church, the President in the U.S., Kim Yong whoever in Korea, Buddha, Mohammed, Putin or whoever are both men and symbols of many men (and women.) That is, when the Pope talks sense and washes the feet of the least of us, he speaks for all of us. Whether we are Catholic or not.

 

You have your dictators and you have your benevolent dictators.

 

Was talking to my wife's cousin last week about her time as an exchange student in Spain, years ago. Many spoke of Franco with fond rememberance and thought things were better under his "lordship". Less crime and uncertainty, than under the rule of lesser, local lords. It is not surprising that the despot and the priest, together rule the people. I am not thinking that no religion, no priests is automatically better though. Communism, in theory, does without the priest, but the despot himself (herself?) becomes the Lord. Everybody has read Animal Farm, (or should.) And I am thinking having a Caliph is not conducive to personal freedom and self actualization, either.

 

I heard the leader of North Korea is like a god on Earth and is not challenged, on general principle. I heard that mullahs in Pakistan, keep their people poor and stupid (uneducated) on purpose, and their henchmen simply kill detractors. I don't have to even talk about the inappropriateness of ISIL rule. The Taliban is also probably not the hero of anybody here. The Syrian President, who could probably defeat ISIL in Syria if backed by the U.N. and more than one of the Security Council's members, is universally disliked because of his human rights violations...its not an easy world to pick apart the good from the bad, the workable from the unworkable. The Arab spring may or may not have made things better for Arabs, for instance.

 

Many times, especially from the mouth of Iran's leader, I have heard that the Iranian people do not dislike Americans, they dislike American policy. Like backing Saddam against Iran, and backing Israel in general, and imposing a hurtful trade embargo and so on.

 

It reminds me of Overtone's take. The people are good and our only problem is those Republican policies.

 

We imposed all those policies because they were consistent with our beliefs, our allies and our self interests. The self interests of Americans. Republican and Democrat.

 

Being "good" in this world is a difficult task. Protecting our way of life against our enemies is a difficult task in this world. I would rather we did not hate ourselves so much, and gave our fellow countrymen and women the benefit of the doubt, and looked for the ways we depend on each other, to live the way we live, and look for the many many things we hold dear, in common.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

There have been times in the last 40 years where the democratic party was controlled by radicals and extremists.

No, there have not. Not one single minute.

 

You are completely and utterly wrong about that, and your task for the next few years of your life is to find out how you got so badly taken by such an obvious con.

 

 

 

In this regard, and in the sense that the Tea Party is strong in their need to cross the church and state line on several issues, and in regards to the way some Tea Party followers seem to be racist and homophobic, I tend to place these leanings in the "fringe", fundamentalist area of the party, and not at the core.

Again - you are simply and obviously wrong. The 27% core electoral base of the Republican Party has not changed since it elected Reagan, demographically or statistically or ideologically or rhetorically, and dressing up in tri-corner hats and naming it "Tea Party" doesn't change who it is.

 

What you see when you look at the "Tea Party"? That's the Republican Party since Nixon. That's not a fringe, that's the foundation. That's Lee Atwater's voting base, Reagan's audience for dog whistle racism, Spiro Agnew's cheering crowd (Google). These are the folks who were reassured by Cheney because he was their idea of competent, and reassured by Palin because she was their idea of honest and forthright. These people voted for W twice, cheering him as a hero, calling his critics traitors and his wars triumphant - and they haven't learned a damn thing.

 

When Jeb Bush said W kept America safe, the response from these people was applause.

 

So for Overtone to say that the republican party is guided by a core of wrong minded individuals, might be true at the moment, but it is not realistic to say that all Republican decisions for the last 47 years have been evil.

1) That' not how I used the term "core". I used it for the electoral base, not the "guides".

2) I never said all Republican decisions have been evil for 47 years. I said that the Republican Party has been taken over by a faction of wrong minded individuals since Reagan, that this wrong mindedness has a name (fascism), that it is enabled by purposeful corruption of the media (currently pimping the "both sides" meme), that its power for the time being rests on a core deranged 27% of the electorate it has organized,

 

and that this control of a major political Party by that faction has been doing increasingly serious harm to the United States and its people - harm that is culminating in the current crises.

 

And that is the biggest problem America faces right now.

 

 

 

Who was in control of the Senate and the house, during the times of better economy?

Slowing down a slide to ruin is not the same thing as a "better" economy. On the budget bills, a coalition of almost all the Democrats and enough remaining Republican sane, backed by the President (whose office submits the basic budget requests and outline of necessary operational costs, btw, see Reagan), has occasionally managed to block the crazy and cook a few books and give the place a breather. But we haven't had a "better" economy since Reagan.

 

Was the economy on it way up or down when the president in question took office.

Clinton? Down. W? holding on barely. Obama? Crashed.

 

 

 

It reminds me of Overtone's take. The people are good and our only problem is those Republican policies.

Why are you incapable of accurate paraphrase of my posts? My guess is it's the same reason you have no idea what the "left" has been saying about any major US political initiative of the Reagan era, but you nevertheless assume the country has been alternately governed by left and right ideologies and policies.

 

 

 

We imposed all those policies because they were consistent with our beliefs, our allies and our self interests. -

Well, they weren't. At least, not the ones you admit to. So you need a different reason. My guess? You don't know what policies were imposed, in the first place.

Edited September 29, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

I never liked Facists, I don't consider myself one and would like the Nazis and KKK to be marginalized in every way possible.

 

There are republicans that are not Fascists, at least one. And I have run into Fascists and have shunned them.

 

I can not prove that any Republicans other than myself believe in Liberal Democracy but I always thought that most republicans that I have met, are good people, that I do not shun, that do not have Fascist designs.

 

I am open however to inspect my beliefs and check a few things for their possible Fascist leanings.

 

But this part of your 47 year long Fascist lead road to ruin, that has the press being controlled by the fascists does not jive with the feeling that I have had for most of my adult life, that the college campus, and the universities and the press, was obviously and strongly left leaning. Even Hollywood is left leaning. I am not sure, in your characterization how the press gets controlled by the Nazis, when most everybody that is literate shuns them.

 

I was looking at a show today that showed an East German "workhouse" survivor 25 years after reunification. The control of people by "the state", was strong in East Berlin and the government held thousands "in" against their will. They could see there was another way to live, right over the wall, where you were not told "how to be", when to eat, when to exercise, when to sleep.

As I recall it was Reagan who said at Brandenburg Gate "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall". I spent some time in Germany, as after the second world war, after the defeat of the nazis the place was watched over by the Russians and the English and the Americans and the French, each with their area of responsibility. My father has limited use of his left hand as he was shot by German Machine Gun, severing a nerve,during the battle of the bulge. I was brought up believing it was a good thing to defeat Fascism, and to shut it down, where ever it raised its ugly head.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 30, 2015 by tar

[overtone]

I never liked Facists, I don't consider myself one and would like the Nazis and KKK to be marginalized in every way possible.

You voted Richard Cheney into the Vice Presidency. Hello?

 

 

 

 

I am open however to inspect my beliefs and check a few things for their possible Facist leanings.

Citation needed. A single example will do.

 

 

 

There are republicans that are not Facists, at least one.

So?

 

 

 

But this part of your 47 year long Facist lead road to ruin, that has the press being controlled by the facists

You need to quit trying to paraphrase my posts. You're 0 for Thread so far.

 

does not jive with the feeling that I have had for most of my adult life, that the college campus, and the universities and the press, was obviously and stongly left leaning.

With all due respect, your "feelings" are bizarre delusions. Here, for example, is a list of the thirty largest universities in the US by enrollment. Take a minute to pick out the "left-leaning" ones - and no, the University of Minnesota is not "left-leaning", and never has been. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_United_States_colleges_and_universities_by_enrollment

When you have completed that informative exercise, you can try picking out the major media corporations that are "left-leaning" - based on evidence, of course, which would mean pointing to predominant programming, major content, and dominant viewpoint, featuring "left" ideology. You might start here: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

 

 

Even Hollywood is left leaning.

Is that an intentional joke?

 

 

I am not sure, in your characterization how the press gets controlled by the Nazis, when most everybody that is literate shuns them.

Now you are reading "Nazis" into my posts, and finding "controlled" in them. I never used either term, and never said anything like your paraphrase there, in any characterization of the US media.

 

 

 

I was brought up believing it was a good thing to defeat Facism, and to shut it down, where ever it raised its ugly head.

First, you need to be able recognize fascism ( small f, as always in my posts unless addressing the Italian political Party or some other actually so named) - then you can set about helping the liberals and lefties and remaining sane conservatives shut it down.

 

Because it does need to be shut down - not "united with".

Edited September 30, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

I was part of the counter culture revolution. I was a hippie. I was on the "Rolling Stone" side of things in the late 60s. I was not at the 68 democratic convention, but many that I associated with, were all for disrupting the convention. In subsequent years I disassociated from groups like the weather underground, but retained a strong desire to see social justice done. I was not a commune hippie, as many of my circle became. I did not go to Viet Nam, and was part of the anti-war contingent. As I said, I later backed McGovern in his election bid. Many of the "radical" thoughts and motives that drove the counter culture revolution, were absorbed by the Democratic Party. Social justice, equality, socialism, feminism, anti-capitalism, were threads that were woven through the counter culture revolution, that still find a home on the campuses and in the Democratic Party. Such is what guides my "feelings" that the democratic party "panders" to the left, to the anti-establishment elements of society. The left is more likely to lean toward Marxism, as the right is more likely to lean toward Nationalism, and as you say, Fascism. But there is also an "establishment" lean that Republicans have, and a "revolutionary" lean that Democrats have. The Cubans that were thrown out of Cuba that had their property ceased by Castro, that I have met, have been conservative republicans, for instance.

 

Regards, TAR

Overtone,

 

I really have no idea what you are talking about.

 

How does an article that says 90 percent of the media is controlled by 6 companies prove that 27 percent of the deluded population is controlled by wrong thinking Republicans?

 

Is the democratic party establishment, or anti-establishment, in your view?

 

Is the republican party establishment, or anti-establishment, in your view?

 

I am not sure either why you think universities are not liberal, or left leaning. Maybe not Catholic universities, but although I have very little evidence, what I know of Fairleigh Dickinson University, for instance, going by a workshop on Sustainable Enterprise, that I attended, the place leans a lot further left, than it does right.

 

I don't know if we are arguing at cross purposes or what, but you are hard to nail down. You say a thing, I disagree with your take, and you tell me its not your take I am disagreeing with. That I am mischaracterising your stance, and I don't know what is going on, don't know what is left and what is right, who is fooled and who are the foolers.

 

If 29 percent of us, by your figuring are wrong minded, and fooled by the media, into being wrong minded, that leaves 71 percent to be clear thinking, good Americans. How do us 71 percent think so clearly as to know to only listen to the 10 percent of the media, that is not run by the Military/Industrial complex, or the Republicans, or the Jews, or who ever you have envisioned in your mind is running the country into ruin.

 

Regards, TAR

Overtone,

 

The "thing" I was thinking about testing for its possible Fascist nature, was one of the annual projects a local organisation I joined this summer is planning. A Christmas light contest.

 

Regards, TAR