The Intolerant Left is even incapable of being tolerant with.....ITSELF
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders left a campaign event in Seattle without giving his speech Saturday after "black lives matter" activists took over the podium.
It is the second time in a month that activists protesting racial inequality have interrupted an event featuring the progressive candidate. On July 18, "black lives matter" demonstrators entered a Netroots Nation forum featuring Sanders and Martin O'Malley in Phoenix and began chanting slogans. In Seattle [yesterday], two [black] women approached the podium just as Sanders began addressing the crowd of several thousand, and demanded the microphone. Sanders stepped aside, and one woman got into an argument with an organizer, shouting "We are angry!"
After being given the microphone, and after the crowd booed, one of the women said, "I was going to tell Bernie how racist this city is ... but you already did it for me."
One of the pair called for four-and-a-half minutes of silence [for] Michael Brown, the black 18-year-old fatally shot by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, nearly a year ago. Some in the crowd began yelling, "Let Bernie speak," . . .
(Still laughing while they call themselves "Progressives")
Looking back to the old SDS days when even the various factions were incapable of being tolerant of one another. The black panthers were at odds with everyone white. The RYM was at odds with WSA and anyone who wasn't for violent revolution. The feminists, (Women's Liberation Movement), were at odds with everyone that didn't have a vagina. The anarchists were at odds with the Marxist socialist communists, (PL, YSA, etc.) and the Wobblies. Various other minority sub groups endlessly fighting with each other for center stage. Even the SDS was split into 2 factions itself squabbling over leadership.
The Left has always been the harbor of the *chronically offended, complaining and intolerant.* and a host of various minorities with an agenda that they want to dominate the majority with. Their first impulse is *always* to silence the opposition.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-09-2015).]
Looking back to the old SDS days when even the various factions were incapable of being tolerant of one another. The black panthers were at odds with everyone white. The RYM was at odds with WSA and anyone who wasn't for violent revolution. The feminists, (Women's Liberation Movement), were at odds with everyone that didn't have a vagina. The anarchists were at odds with the Marxist socialist communists, (PL, YSA, etc.) and the Wobblies. Various other minority sub groups endlessly fighting with each other for center stage. Even the SDS was split into 2 factions itself squabbling over leadership.
The Judean People's Front! Splitters!
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 08-09-2015).]
Maximilien Robespierre "lf the attribute of popular government in peace is virtue, the attribute of popular government in revolution is at one and the same time virtue and terror, virtue without which terror is fatal, terror without which virtue is impotent. The terror is nothing but justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is thus an emanation of virtue."
"Atheism is aristocratic; the idea of a great Being that watches over oppressed innocence and punishes triumphant crime is altogether popular."
“You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”
The Intolerant Left is even incapable of being tolerant with.....ITSELF
Its amusing to me actually. It never changes.
(Still laughing while they call themselves "Progressives")
Looking back to the old SDS days when even the various factions were incapable of being tolerant of one another. The black panthers were at odds with everyone white. The RYM was at odds with WSA and anyone who wasn't for violent revolution. The feminists, (Women's Liberation Movement), were at odds with everyone that didn't have a vagina. The anarchists were at odds with the Marxist socialist communists, (PL, YSA, etc.) and the Wobblies. Various other minority sub groups endlessly fighting with each other for center stage. Even the SDS was split into 2 factions itself squabbling over leadership.
The Left has always been the harbor of the *chronically offended, complaining and intolerant.* and a host of various minorities with an agenda that they want to dominate the majority with. Their first impulse is *always* to silence the opposition.
I must be reading this wrong. You're not suggesting that Bernie is responsible for the actions of those two are you?
Which God should be mentioned? Yours? Or one of the other dozens that someone believes in who lives here? If all get equal "airtime" with prayers in schools, for example, there won't be any time for education that's actually useful. If you meant only yours: another interesting point regarding the topic we're discussing in this thread.
See, that's the point. All gods can be discussed (including God) in a truly pluralistic environment. 1A was meant to keep the Government out of people's faith (not the other way around). Even the infamous "hedge of separation" was about keeping the Government from dictating to churches what they can and can't teach (which the IRS does by implicit threat of taxation). The original Constitutions of several States and Commonwealths called for Christians of good moral character to be the only ones electable to office, though that was change through Conservative tolerance. It was expected that individuals would bring their faith to bear on their public service.
If dratts had been in Chicago in 68', or at the "last" SDS convention in 1969 when it all sort of fell apart with all the factions and then the WUO went their own way he *might* understand the REAL genesis of the "Left" in the U.S. today. We were there. Part of it. We personally know them for what they were then and what they still are now.
Just WHO the hell do you think the *founders* of the group "Progressives for Obama" are?
(Tom Hayden, Mark Rudd, Carl Davidson, Todd Gitlin, Bill Fletcher, Susan Klonsky, Mike Klonsky, and many more....SDS and Weather Underground, (WUO)
More of your "different kind of Socialism"...THIS TIME.....by a different name....
WHO do you think is lining up behind Bernie now?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-09-2015).]
One more time. Socialist, socialist democrat! They are not the same. I don't have an argument with your socialist post but it doesn't pertain to socialist democrat. Bernie is not the socialist that you would like to paint him as. He's a mixture of socialism an capitalism and that is exactly what we have in this country and have had for a long time.
What percent does socialism reach before its too much?
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: See, that's the point. All gods can be discussed (including God) in a truly pluralistic environment. 1A was meant to keep the Government out of people's faith (not the other way around). Even the infamous "hedge of separation" was about keeping the Government from dictating to churches what they can and can't teach (which the IRS does by implicit threat of taxation). The original Constitutions of several States and Commonwealths called for Christians of good moral character to be the only ones electable to office, though that was change through Conservative tolerance. It was expected that individuals would bring their faith to bear on their public service.
Originally posted by dratts: That number is way past my ability to calculate. I do at this time though firmly believe that neither pure socialism or pure capitalism would work.
My point is more socialism is too much, especially among all the irresponsible citizens we have. You can say we need a mix but if you dont know the mix what are you really saying?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 08-10-2015).]
Social Security WIC Food Stamps Section 8 housing Head Start Unemployment benefits Unemployment benefit extension to 99 weeks Welfare Single payer health care Current health care program Planned Parenthood Displaced worker training programs
The closest thing to a definition that comes up for that seems to be:
Noun 1. modern times - the circumstances and ideas of the present age; "in modern times like these" - Socialism is an "idea". Many people see "circumstances" and cannot see how they came about, and the anwser they come up with to fix them is to take money from people and give it to other people, (taxing it along the way of course).
The closest thing to a definition that comes up for that seems to be:
Noun 1. modern times - the circumstances and ideas of the present age; "in modern times like these" - Socialism is an "idea". Many people see "circumstances" and cannot see how they came about, and the anwser they come up with to fix them is to take money from people and give it to other people, (taxing it along the way of course).
NO there is a dictionary definition of socialism it is not what ever you say it is it is what it is government ownership of industry and that is all it is
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
Not as originally designed, as an insurance/annuity program. But since government owns the funds, it could be considered Socialist.
quote
WIC Food Stamps Section 8 housing Head Start Welfare
Possibly since the funds are controlled solely by government.
quote
Unemployment benefits Unemployment benefit extension to 99 weeks
No. Unemployment is an insurance program purchased with premiums from your employer and is considered part of your compensation.
quote
Single payer health care
Yes, because it replaces private industry with public. The idea is to do away with insurance companies, etc., and have control reside in government.
quote
Current health care program
No. I pay premiums and my employer also pays premiums as part of my compensation package for my insurance policy. Once you start with the subsidized policies, it's not as clear.
quote
Planned Parenthood
No opinion. I don't know enough about how it's organized.
quote
Displaced worker training programs
This could be lumped in with any type of public education. Like the welfare group, the funds are controlled by government but the service may be provided by private entities (i.e. schools that get public funding). It's a gray area, but I'd say no since it's not clearly owned by government.
NO there is a dictionary definition of socialism it is not what ever you say it is it is what it is government ownership of industry and that is all it is
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[3][4] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership (achieved by nationalization), citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[5]
... though that was change through Conservative tolerance.
LOL. That's like saying that the Inquisition was abolished because of the Vatican's benevolence.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad:It was expected that individuals would bring their faith to bear on their public service.
And personally I'm happy that that the blind belief in supernatural phenomena is not the basis of public service anymore. At least over here and in the "West" in general. There are still more than enough places in the world where the "conservative tolerance" hasn't quite reached, e.g. Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan, Brunei etc.
And personally I'm happy that that the blind belief in supernatural phenomena is not the basis of public service anymore. At least over here and in the "West" in general. There are still more than enough places in the world where the "conservative tolerance" hasn't quite reached, e.g. Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan, Brunei etc.
So, if that's the right, and you're the left, then I'm the center!
