The so-called "progressives" need to quit calling everyonr who disagrees with them "right-wingers".

You guys constantly call all the other posters, nearly all of us perfectly good liberals, "right-wing DLC conserva-dems" and yet wonder why people are viciously bashing you in response.

I score as a left-libertarian on the Political compass, -7 on the authoritarian-libertarian axis and -4 on the left-right axis. I AM NO FUCKING CONSERVATIVE, and I am sick of being accused of being one by certain posters when I disagree with them. I am a left-wing supporter of the political ideas of Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper, which is probably why I seem to agitate certain posters, since Popper is famous for his crushing critique of Marxism.

I am a LIBERAL, not a conservative, not a DLCer, not a supporter of "class privilege", I am a Liberal. Most posters on this message board are liberals, too, so this constant sewage of accusations of posters being right-wing hacks needs to stop.

;-)

lol

I agree with him because I am convinced by the reasonableness of his ideas, not because of his status as an intellectual.

As it is, since Popper is opposed to Marxism and some posters are fond of Marxism (and thus presumably hostile to both Popper and his arguments), the mention of his name is only meant to identify the basis of disagreement, rather than serve as a refutation of Marxist ideas.

"I am a left-wing supporter of the political ideas of Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper, which is probably why I seem to agitate certain posters, since Popper is famous for his crushing critique of Marxism."

Basically you are taking an aside and pretending it is the bone of contention, when you know perfectly well that it isn't.

in a critique of authoritarianism.

:rofl:

I see you have resorted to using the rofl-smiley as if it somehow validates your spurious logic. Oh dear.

because the OP does not purport to be a critique of Marxism: the OP cites Popper only as a reference for his own political position. You know this perfectly well.

I agree with people because they have good ideas, sensible ideas, logical ideas, ideas based on facts, not because they are an "authority". So merely AGREEING with a man who was one of the greatest critics of the authoritarian mindset in the 20th century of all things is "appealing to authority"? :wtf:

instead of discussing his idea/s, you bet.

:eyes:

Thomas Hardy. I'm still not sure which one of the four of us wound up with the most loose screws. lol

:P

Loose screws? Thomas Hardy?

So many jokes, so little time............. ;)

I mentioned him because it seems like many posters seem to think that anyone who criticizes Marxism and left-wing authoritarians are right-wingers.

which some seem to have about Marx

:-)

Don't worry the irony will be lost on most

to cry uncle.

lol

:-)

Yep, got my copy and now readying.

Show of hands?

Jesus, Moses, Martin, you agree with me. Good.

:rofl:

I am just telling you that this is funny as hell, that is all

lol

and readying open society... for real...

Some light summer readying never hurt anyone.

and readying open society... for real...

Some light summer readying never hurt anyone.

demolish themselves is sort of your problem. But, nice use of the royal "we"!

Please keep it up, I'm getting close to bingo.

:hi:

Nah, just kidding.

The first half involving Plato is very relavent now days given the Neo-Cons.

Black-and-white thinking and authoritarian attitudes are NOT "progressive".

lol

What's the definition of authoritarianism again?

:rofl:

labeling someone as right-winger, corporatists or what-have-you is a cheap trick used by a small group of posters when they're losing or have lost an argument, and is usually nothing more than an attempt to change the subject while maintaining rhetorical momentum.

If someone makes a habit of calling other people names as a rhetorical tactic, eventually others will lose patience and repay them in their own coin. At that point, saying 'waaah, you're calling me names' rings a bit hollow.

In other news, people who dish it out sometimes prove unable to take it.

it sounds painful, like the result of a botched operation :yoiks:

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:cry:
:rofl:

Of course, maybe that means a warm gun is a symbol of authoritarianism after all.

If the shoe fits, wear it!

You possess an affinity for FDR, reflect on this quote from that good man:

"It is more dangerous to befriend members of organized banking than to befriend members of organized crime families." Madison Square Garden, June 1936

And reflect on how Obama has clearly befriended the AIG/Goldman Sachs inner circle, to the detriment of not only our generation, but that of our kids and grand kids. We are talking TRILLIONS of dollars. It was given to these banksters without any oversight and in a very hastily thrown together manner.

Why? Even Richard Nixon would not have done this - in fact his Presidency suffered becuase of the fact that he put in price controls.

Rather than put in price controls, Obama has given the banksters so much money that they can use it to speculate on such things as oil and other necesssary commodities - and thus force working families to suffer.

But as long as people are overly impressed with the Big D after O's name, I guess there is not a lot those of us who understand the reality can do about anything.

The National Recovery Act in particular. in the 1932 election he ran on a centrist platform of balanced budgets, for Christ's sake. The Bankster-Bashing FDR we all know and love only emerged in the mid 30s.

TARP, not FDR.

But you're right - FDR ran as a rather Centrist individual.

Once he got the power however, he did not go out and install the folks with nepotistic ties to Goldman Sachs as the lords and overseers of his banking programs! And that, my friend, is the big huge difference.

:wow:

:shrug:

Nowadays, that there is grounds for a military coup, suppression of the press, and firing on unarmed demonstrators. But, I suspect the irony there will be lost on ya.

Some posters misinterpreted some criticisms (which in hindsight I admit to have been wrong) of Zelaya's behavior as president as meaning I supported the coup, which is 100% wrong.

that inclination is what we're noticing, not some individual remark.

:shrug:

people there scoff at those of us in GD - as the average GD head is all about how their love for Obama keeps them warm at night (Which could be a good thing, I guess - with coming hyper inflation of 2011-2012 few will be able to buy heating fuels)

If you wanna understand the Goldman Sachs situation and how it is a real concern

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x67108
Or google Max Keiser + Goldman sachs

One of the Keiser videos is here
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnmsmLsJg14

And I am skeptical of inflation worries given that Libertarian gold-bug types are always crying wolf about hyperinflation that never comes (though if I am wrong I will gladly eat my hat).

I UnUnRec you, DoublePlusGood. Chocolate rations are UP!

One man's trash is another man's treasure. One man's moderate is another man's reactionary. From a Canadian standpoint, your "middle of the road" is our "right parking lane".

LOL And it's hard to progress when you're in park :spray:

I love me some parks.

Nice and cool places in the hot summertime.

How ya doing?

and river and ocean breezes and popsicles. Today my answer to how to raise a caring next generation was "Connection with nature."

Great posts, as usual :toast:

lol

try disagreeing with the "truthers" in the 9/11 forum, and you get accused of assisting "Bushco" in the cover-up of their crime, which I take to be "MIHOP". It's really getting sickening.

i score similarly, and have a similar distaste for marxism. i have witnessed the same crap here too. it's like if you DARE disagree with the orthodoxy, you must be a RW troll.

"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions. … It obviously endangers the freedom and the objectivity of our discussion if we attack a person instead of attacking an opinion or, more precisely, a theory."

--Karl Popper

That style and attitude is macho. Generally, discussion among women is more cooperative, not as defensive or needing to dominate.

*ducks and runs*

;)

... if I only had a brain

I'm waiting patiently.

I mean really now, various factions around here have been flinging shit since almost the inception of this joint, and pretty much the rule is that you take your lumps and move on. In fact the rules state that you need a thick skin, and if you don't, perhaps this isn't the place for you.

So why are you here flinging this "Whaaaa, I got called bad names Mommy" divisive bullshit around? Seems as though you're deliberately trying to drive a wedge in this place. Do like the vast majority have done, take your lumps and move on. After all, it's not like you haven't done your share of poo tossing, as have most of us. Deal with it, grow a thick skin, or as the rules suggest, find somewhere else.

So why isn't that attitude emphasized in DU Rules, rather than "Respect" and "Civility"? How is what you're saying consistent with that?

As opposed to just accepting that not everyone will agree with their particular view on every issue. Because that takes humility and maturity.

:yourock:

That's through-the-looking-glass stuff.

I remember you using the phrase 'hippie type'in a post.

I dislike your type. Doesn't that sound ugly?

You've made your own enemies.

Eh.

Try Badiou.

Faux Liberal
So-called Progressive
DINO
Popperite
Popperazzi

:rofl:

Labels mean absolutely nothing. I agree or disagree with people on the basis of what they support and promote. Pretty much everyone here -- no matter how divergent or contradictory their viewpoints are -- claims to be a "liberal". It really means nothing.

sw

That's my litmus test.

[

:hug: "You guys"? Who and what are you talking to/about? Sometimes, Odin2005, you go off b/c of one example of something and .................... It's pretty clear today's news and change has brought plenty of factionalized cliches to the surface.

A lot of the labels are worthless b/c of all the different values people place on them, particularly "centrist."

Some of the "liberals" sometimes act like "right wing hacks." The biggest thing IMHO now and always is how willing people are to disrespect and attack each other. The new pushbutton solution doesn't address that at all. :shrug:

In particular the people claiming that the unrest in Iran was a CIA plot, and a bunch of people that joined just to support the coup in Honduras, seems to have really set off a lot of bad vibes. I am also disturbed how many DUers think Obama can snap his fingers and change everything instantly as if he was a dictator, I also think people are jumping to conclusions with regards to Obama's finance guys. To use an FDR comparison, Henry Morganthau and Joe Kennedy didn't have clean hands either.

And maybe I'm just a naive idiot, but this "if we don't get all the reforms we want now we will never get them" meme I run across in many healthcare threads just seems ridiculous. :shrug:

and your willingness to talk to people outside your own little brushstroked box (we all have them here) are appreciated. The people with the courage and confidence to do that DESPITE differences and communication difficulties, I can count on one hand (that I've known). It is IMHO the best of DU when that happens, when those gaps are bridged by willing hearts and minds.

What you are, though, is young. And some of those voices you see commenting have been around the block, down this road and taken for the same damn ride before.

Yes. When you see the financial crisis that Reaganism and Bushco MIHOP inaugurate the Obama administration -- and then you see that admin put the foxes in charge of the henhouse and RETAIN THE TOXIC ASSETS AND PROCESS THAT DESTROYED THE ECONOMY, be afraid, concerned, wary but do NOT be waiting to give them the benefit of the doubt that their IN YOUR FACE actions are not as bad as they appear.

Healthcare? Again, with the industry calling the shots, defining the terms, controlling and buying the votes, what kind of outcome will we get?

Have you studied also the history of the US and Iran, of the CIA? How much leeway do you give?

People do not remember history, they repeat it. People do not listen to warnings. they forge ahead and fuck up.

Some of the voices you hear are spot on.

If Marx got anything right it's that blind socioeconomic forces can create situations that can superficially look like a vast elite conspiracy when in reality those elites are "slaves of the system" just like everyone else. The "Conspiracy Theory of Society" fails because policies always have unintended consequences, it only makes sense if actual conspiracy theorists (like the Nazis) come to power. The Neo-Cons failed in their quasi-fascist conspiracy and were thrown out last fall exactly because they forgot about unintended consequences and thought they could order the world as they wanted it, then Iraq turned into a quagmire, New Orleans was destroyed, and the bubble economy collapsed; and now I bet Scaife is yanking his hair out.

I actually came to similar views regarding the philosophy of science before I even heard of him, which is why I found Popper so interesting. Also, his anti-authoritarian and anti-utopian political views are in large part derived from his falsificationist epistemology. His life experiences surely helped, too, when he was my age it seemed like Liberal Democracy was crumbling all over Europe as fascists and communists started going at each other and Russia was descending into a totalitarian hell.

How much did the DLC pay you to write this?

:)

All-knowing all-father of a warrior culture. God of the gallows with close ties to trickster giant.

Sounds like a pro-death penalty, patriarchal, Fox News-watching, Big Brother neocon to me. ;-)

:evilgrin:

:yoiks:

(I'm going to bed...)

i did`t know that "so called progressives" were such asses....

It's the Midwestern version of "y'all". Also, "guys" is increasingly being used in a gender-neutral sense.

if someone claims to be a Liberal, they are. And if that conflicts with your lifelong conceptions of what a Liberal position on an issue is, then you simply HAVE to change those conceptions.

That's the way DU works.

post the same would-be-RW-talking-points-but-aren't-because-they're-on-DU, then you REALLY need to change your opinions pronto.