The genius of Liberal Liberal Liberal in Republican propaganda.

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
EZduzit is right, civil rights and women rights were considered 'extreme liberal ideals' 100 years ago. Liberalism is the ideology of the future. Conservatism is the ideology of the past. When people talk about the 'good old days', they're talking about the 90's, before the Bush catastrophe. Bush and his neo-conservatism has effectively brought our country back to 1991.

So, you can take your pick, but I'll choose liberalism. It has been and always will be the winning ideology anyway. That is, unless conservatives have their way and armageddon is brought about, which is the only way the conservative ideology can 'win'. Face it, conservatism is counter-productive. Anti-progress. History has shown it, and history will continue to show it.

Liberalism was the ideology of the future while it was still liberalism. Socialism is a "back to the future" ideology, i.e. things were better when the king and his government protected us before we had the dangers inherent to liberty. Were socialism actually progressive, it would be optimistic instead of pessimistic.

edit: at no point were civil rights (which includes women's rights) ever considered to be socialist ideals, as you allude that 1EZduzit was supposedly right about. Those were always considered to be liberal ideals.

 

[Moonbeam]

The answers to all real problems lies in the integration of opposites in higher understanding. The answer to the extremes of the left and the right, and I have to confess, this fight as to whether we have moved right or left and who has become more extreme seems far from being relevant, is to recognize that the left and the right are both right and wrong. Each side will not hear that they are wrong because they hear in that only that they are not right. Truth is the collapse of paradox in higher understanding. Higher understanding is despised by both sides.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aisengard
EZduzit is right, civil rights and women rights were considered 'extreme liberal ideals' 100 years ago. Liberalism is the ideology of the future. Conservatism is the ideology of the past. When people talk about the 'good old days', they're talking about the 90's, before the Bush catastrophe. Bush and his neo-conservatism has effectively brought our country back to 1991.

So, you can take your pick, but I'll choose liberalism. It has been and always will be the winning ideology anyway. That is, unless conservatives have their way and armageddon is brought about, which is the only way the conservative ideology can 'win'. Face it, conservatism is counter-productive. Anti-progress. History has shown it, and history will continue to show it.

Liberalism was the ideology of the future while it was still liberalism. Socialism is a "back to the future" ideology, i.e. things were better when the king and his government protected us before we had the dangers inherent to liberty. Were socialism actually progressive, it would be optimistic instead of pessimistic.

Glad we agree. I assume you vote for liberals, then?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aisengard
EZduzit is right, civil rights and women rights were considered 'extreme liberal ideals' 100 years ago. Liberalism is the ideology of the future. Conservatism is the ideology of the past. When people talk about the 'good old days', they're talking about the 90's, before the Bush catastrophe. Bush and his neo-conservatism has effectively brought our country back to 1991.

So, you can take your pick, but I'll choose liberalism. It has been and always will be the winning ideology anyway. That is, unless conservatives have their way and armageddon is brought about, which is the only way the conservative ideology can 'win'. Face it, conservatism is counter-productive. Anti-progress. History has shown it, and history will continue to show it.

Liberalism was the ideology of the future while it was still liberalism. Socialism is a "back to the future" ideology, i.e. things were better when the king and his government protected us before we had the dangers inherent to liberty. Were socialism actually progressive, it would be optimistic instead of pessimistic.

Glad we agree. I assume you vote for liberals, then?

I do. When they are liberals. Meaning that they believe in the principles of liberty and equality, and not those of phony populism or corrupt socialism disgusing itself as liberalism.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aisengard
EZduzit is right, civil rights and women rights were considered 'extreme liberal ideals' 100 years ago. Liberalism is the ideology of the future. Conservatism is the ideology of the past. When people talk about the 'good old days', they're talking about the 90's, before the Bush catastrophe. Bush and his neo-conservatism has effectively brought our country back to 1991.

So, you can take your pick, but I'll choose liberalism. It has been and always will be the winning ideology anyway. That is, unless conservatives have their way and armageddon is brought about, which is the only way the conservative ideology can 'win'. Face it, conservatism is counter-productive. Anti-progress. History has shown it, and history will continue to show it.

Liberalism was the ideology of the future while it was still liberalism. Socialism is a "back to the future" ideology, i.e. things were better when the king and his government protected us before we had the dangers inherent to liberty. Were socialism actually progressive, it would be optimistic instead of pessimistic.

There was a time when our parents protected us from the dangers inherent to liberty. They kept us away from the edges of cliffs when we played, for example, and made sure the food in the frig wasn't rotten or that we didn't eat the ant poison. It seems to me you make some basically flawed assumptions, for example that everybody who reaches a certain age is in fact a responsible adult. You assume that all those who think some people may need some help beyond the arbitrary age of adulthood are evil and out to control them. Is that what you think of your parents or all parents. It strikes me that you are given to a rather absolutist way of thinking and that in fact, the pessimism is all yours, no?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The answers to all real problems lies in the integration of opposites in higher understanding. The answer to the extremes of the left and the right, and I have to confess, this fight as to whether we have moved right or left and who has become more extreme seems far from being relevant, is to recognize that the left and the right are both right and wrong. Each side will not hear that they are wrong because they hear in that only that they are not right. Truth is the collapse of paradox in higher understanding. Higher understanding is despised by both sides.

Once one subscribes to a particular ideology, and then chooses a group to belong to as part of that ideology, one has sacrificed all ability to think for oneself. So of course one could not possibly be wrong after that.
The right and the left have far more in common than not.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aisengard
EZduzit is right, civil rights and women rights were considered 'extreme liberal ideals' 100 years ago. Liberalism is the ideology of the future. Conservatism is the ideology of the past. When people talk about the 'good old days', they're talking about the 90's, before the Bush catastrophe. Bush and his neo-conservatism has effectively brought our country back to 1991.

So, you can take your pick, but I'll choose liberalism. It has been and always will be the winning ideology anyway. That is, unless conservatives have their way and armageddon is brought about, which is the only way the conservative ideology can 'win'. Face it, conservatism is counter-productive. Anti-progress. History has shown it, and history will continue to show it.

Liberalism was the ideology of the future while it was still liberalism. Socialism is a "back to the future" ideology, i.e. things were better when the king and his government protected us before we had the dangers inherent to liberty. Were socialism actually progressive, it would be optimistic instead of pessimistic.

There was a time when our parents protected us from the dangers inherent to liberty. They kept us away from the edges of cliffs when we played, for example, and made sure the food in the frig wasn't rotten or that we didn't eat the ant poison. It seems to me you make some basically flawed assumptions, for example that everybody who reaches a certain age is in fact a responsible adult. You assume that all those who think some people may need some help beyond the arbitrary age of adulthood are evil and out to control them. Is that what you think of your parents or all parents. It strikes me that you are given to a rather absolutist way of thinking and that in fact, the pessimism is all yours, no?

And I could say the same about you making false assumptions. Sometimes those who pretend that all they want to do is help other people are really just trying to exploit them for their own selfish interests. Part of becoming an adult is realizing the importance of choices and the right of people to make their own. Seeking to deny other people that right, even (or especially?) if you think it is in their best interests, is the perhaps greatest evil of all, for you are essentially robbing that person of their own life. So that when it comes down to it, the only real difference between the right and the left is the particular lifechoices that either side wants to force us down for our own good.

As to "the pessimism is all" mine remark... do you even read this forum?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The answers to all real problems lies in the integration of opposites in higher understanding. The answer to the extremes of the left and the right, and I have to confess, this fight as to whether we have moved right or left and who has become more extreme seems far from being relevant, is to recognize that the left and the right are both right and wrong. Each side will not hear that they are wrong because they hear in that only that they are not right. Truth is the collapse of paradox in higher understanding. Higher understanding is despised by both sides.

Once one subscribes to a particular ideology, and then chooses a group to belong to as part of that ideology, one has sacrificed all ability to think for oneself. So of course one could not possibly be wrong after that.
The right and the left have far more in common than not.

There is nothing in your statement that leads to the conclusion that one can't possibly be wrong. There is nothing to say, either, that attachment to a point of view means that one is forever fixed. One can look at positions and vote what is closest to what one believes, too, without actually choosing it as a group other than that which most closely represents your view. I do know that in actual fact people identify with this or that because it offers them the 'good' view that supplants what should be actual respect of the self, because we were taught to hate who we really are. That does not mean, however, that self knowledge can't lessen that effect once one becomes conscious of its action. That is the actual root of the phenomenon that one can't be wrong. It brings up feelings of worthlessness that are deeply buried and feel like dying when they are re-felt.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The answers to all real problems lies in the integration of opposites in higher understanding. The answer to the extremes of the left and the right, and I have to confess, this fight as to whether we have moved right or left and who has become more extreme seems far from being relevant, is to recognize that the left and the right are both right and wrong. Each side will not hear that they are wrong because they hear in that only that they are not right. Truth is the collapse of paradox in higher understanding. Higher understanding is despised by both sides.

Once one subscribes to a particular ideology, and then chooses a group to belong to as part of that ideology, one has sacrificed all ability to think for oneself. So of course one could not possibly be wrong after that in their own minds.
The right and the left have far more in common than not.

There is nothing in your statement that leads to the conclusion that one can't possibly be wrong. There is nothing to say, either, that attachment to a point of view means that one is forever fixed. One can look at positions and vote what is closest to what one believes, too, without actually choosing it as a group other than that which most closely represents your view. I do know that in actual fact people identify with this or that because it offers them the 'good' view that supplants what should be actual respect of the self, because we were taught to hate who we really are. That does not mean, however, that self knowledge can't lessen that effect once one becomes conscious of its action. That is the actual root of the phenomenon that one can't be wrong. It brings up feelings of worthlessness that are deeply buried and feel like dying when they are re-felt.

Fixed what I thought was obvious.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aisengard
EZduzit is right, civil rights and women rights were considered 'extreme liberal ideals' 100 years ago. Liberalism is the ideology of the future. Conservatism is the ideology of the past. When people talk about the 'good old days', they're talking about the 90's, before the Bush catastrophe. Bush and his neo-conservatism has effectively brought our country back to 1991.

So, you can take your pick, but I'll choose liberalism. It has been and always will be the winning ideology anyway. That is, unless conservatives have their way and armageddon is brought about, which is the only way the conservative ideology can 'win'. Face it, conservatism is counter-productive. Anti-progress. History has shown it, and history will continue to show it.

Liberalism was the ideology of the future while it was still liberalism. Socialism is a "back to the future" ideology, i.e. things were better when the king and his government protected us before we had the dangers inherent to liberty. Were socialism actually progressive, it would be optimistic instead of pessimistic.

There was a time when our parents protected us from the dangers inherent to liberty. They kept us away from the edges of cliffs when we played, for example, and made sure the food in the frig wasn't rotten or that we didn't eat the ant poison. It seems to me you make some basically flawed assumptions, for example that everybody who reaches a certain age is in fact a responsible adult. You assume that all those who think some people may need some help beyond the arbitrary age of adulthood are evil and out to control them. Is that what you think of your parents or all parents. It strikes me that you are given to a rather absolutist way of thinking and that in fact, the pessimism is all yours, no?

And I could say the same about you making false assumptions. Sometimes those who pretend that all they want to do is help other people are really just trying to exploit them for their own selfish interests. Part of becoming an adult is realizing the importance of choices and the right of people to make their own. Seeking to deny other people that right, even (or especially?) if you think it is in their best interests, is the perhaps greatest evil of all, for you are essentially robbing that person of their own life. So that when it comes down to it, the only real difference between the right and the left is the particular lifechoices that either side wants to force us down for our own good.

As to "the pessimism is all" mine remark... do you even read this forum?

Did I say that all people who want to help are never motivated by a need to exploit? I suggested you are pessimistic because that possibility seems to be all you focus on. There will be no development of adult consciousness if the adult is so immature in adulthood that he walks off a cliff. I will stop somebody from doing that if I'm there and can act. I don't give a crap if you call it evil. I will save people and be evil instead of being a saint and letting them die. You seem to me to have the "fixed view".

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The answers to all real problems lies in the integration of opposites in higher understanding. The answer to the extremes of the left and the right, and I have to confess, this fight as to whether we have moved right or left and who has become more extreme seems far from being relevant, is to recognize that the left and the right are both right and wrong. Each side will not hear that they are wrong because they hear in that only that they are not right. Truth is the collapse of paradox in higher understanding. Higher understanding is despised by both sides.

Once one subscribes to a particular ideology, and then chooses a group to belong to as part of that ideology, one has sacrificed all ability to think for oneself. So of course one could not possibly be wrong after that in their own minds.
The right and the left have far more in common than not.

There is nothing in your statement that leads to the conclusion that one can't possibly be wrong. There is nothing to say, either, that attachment to a point of view means that one is forever fixed. One can look at positions and vote what is closest to what one believes, too, without actually choosing it as a group other than that which most closely represents your view. I do know that in actual fact people identify with this or that because it offers them the 'good' view that supplants what should be actual respect of the self, because we were taught to hate who we really are. That does not mean, however, that self knowledge can't lessen that effect once one becomes conscious of its action. That is the actual root of the phenomenon that one can't be wrong. It brings up feelings of worthlessness that are deeply buried and feel like dying when they are re-felt.

Fixed what I thought was obvious.

The point you call obvious was the one I also was addressing. I know what you meant.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Vic
The OP's complaint wouldn't be an issue if liberals were still liberal. It's not that the USA is moving steadily to the right, it's that the left has been moving steadily to the extreme left.

Exactly, I totally agree.

The moderate Democrat I could actually see myself voting for does not exist.

Your both totally delusional if you really believe that.

Really? Explain. I'd love to hear it.

LMAO, you first.

What should I explain? My comment was straight-forward and easily observable IRL. It has been increasingly evident that "liberals" in America have been moving steadily away from liberalism and increasingly towards socialism over the past few decades. What was once just a push for civil rights and social equality has become an infatuation with the use of government force for wealth redistribution, inequality of government based on wealth (i.e. the rich are forced to pay more in taxes but OTOH they're getting what they pay for), and a blind favoring of corporate interests by having taxpayers foot the bill for what corporations should pay for themselves (i.e. "universal" health care).

Perhaps you shouldn't troll that people are "delusional" when you're unable to back it up? Most likely you just trolled that comment because you know it's the truth and you're the one who's delusional..

Times change. What you consider liberalism now was considered socilaism 100 years ago. You could pay for your health care with food then. Is it socialist to think that all the people should have decent health care? Not in my mind. Anybody working should have full health care benifits.

Now, if you believe your getting screwed on your taxes, then maybe your just making more money then you are worth and should count yourself lucky to be making so much? Might may make right, put paying taxes doens't make your any smarter, more experienced, or better informed then the next guy, so cry me a river whilst you call me a troll.

I think it's a shame so many people are stuck with such an outrageous tax burden. Maybe they should give their employees a raise or charge their customers less (or both)?

So unable to argue my points, you twisted this into a personal attack? Where did I say that I believed I was getting screwed on my taxes, and how does that even enter into my arguments?

Oh, and BTW, your != you're.

LMAO at you. You attack me, call me a troll, and then accuse me of "turing this into a personal attack"!! Well, I could lead you to water, but you wouldn't drink it anyway so what's the point??

Uh... you did troll, ala McOwen.

edit: and you continue to do so. I can't drink water that you don't even lead me to, i.e. you haven't actually even made a single point.

I didn't troll anymore then you did, though you can't see that. I sure as heck never made this a personal attack as you tried to accuse me of.

Just stick to your claim that you are the only person who knows the correct definition of "liberalism" and "socialism" and I will stick to my claim that you are wrong.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Vic
The OP's complaint wouldn't be an issue if liberals were still liberal. It's not that the USA is moving steadily to the right, it's that the left has been moving steadily to the extreme left.

:thumbsup:

I've been saying that for some time now.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Vic
The OP's complaint wouldn't be an issue if liberals were still liberal. It's not that the USA is moving steadily to the right, it's that the left has been moving steadily to the extreme left.

:thumbsup:

I've been saying that for some time now.

One can say anything. Why isn't it that the nation has polarized with both sides becoming more extreme?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Vic
The OP's complaint wouldn't be an issue if liberals were still liberal. It's not that the USA is moving steadily to the right, it's that the left has been moving steadily to the extreme left.

:thumbsup:

I've been saying that for some time now.

And I've been saying that the righties are moving to the extreme right for a while, and I think we're both right. The neo-cons just have much better marketing...I don't think the country has really moved either way.

Interestingly enough, the Dems seem to have realized this and are pushing far more centrist views lately, while the Republicans seem to be laboring under the illusion that the country is squarely in their ideological corner. I think there is going to a surge of moderate views in the next few years, and while the Dems are hardly in an ideal position to take advantage, the Republicans are even worse off.

 

[Lemon law]

I would have to say Pabster is dead wrong---the left has been moving to the right---and now the Republican party has moved to the far far right---or at least the leadership has---and GWB has by in large hi-jacked the Republican party---which used to stand for fiscal prudence in government---and now runs up world record unsustainable defecits to put on a national credit card---and the Republican big tent now only embraces Christian fundementalists and anti-abortion candidates.--and for the first time in our nation;s history---funds churches. The Republican party also was traditionally opposed to foreign adventures and nation building---and now we are bogged down in Iraq and Afganistan in a phony war against terror---and losing badly as we create more terrorists than we kill by any objective measure.

But more moderate politicians of both parties are doing fine---and far right politicians--especially those ensnared in the lobbying scandals are becoming endangered species. Bill Clinton in particular was a democrat who moved to the right---stole some of the Republican issues---and did quite well---Lieberman did the same in his senate races---running to the right of Wicker---and saw that fall apart over Iraq when he became identified with the failing Iraq war and did not survive a more liberal challenger in the democratic primary.---because the Republican candidate is so weak---Lieberman---running as an independent may still win the general election and retain his seat.

But there remains a hard core of real Republican moderates in the house and senate---who are in almost open rebellion against the policies of GWB---and they plan to be there when Bush goes in 08. But like Nixon before---if GWB really blows it in Iraq---those same Republican moderates will be far faster than democrats to vote to impeach GWB---with Nixon--we had to have proof of high crimes and mis-demenors---with GWB---its already documented and just lacks the political will.

But if the dems get even one wing of congress and the subpeona power that goes with it---you can bet Rummy will be gone before he can be put on the witness stand.---and the evidence to impeach will come out in droves---which is why GWB can't afford to lose even one wing or it may be a long remaining two years if the lifespan is that long---it should be an interesting October with a verdict in early November.---which far right posterchildren will survive and which will not.---bit I can't recall any year in which this many congress people have resigned or have been directly jailed in disgrace.---and on the most corrupt list of congress---22 of 25 are Republicans---including the speaker of the house as a mere honorable mention and the Senate majority leader---Bill Frisk is there also in the solid top 20.---and the Republican party is now the party of lobbyists and corruption.

But the electorate has been moving steadily to the right---someone like Nixon would be regarded as a far left Liberal by todays standards---and now we have gone too far---and the pendulum will swing the other way when the bad social policy and blunders start to really come back and bite---GWB is an anomoly---not a trend.

 

[Pens1566]

I agree with LL about the right going waaaay right, and the dems going to the right. At least what used to be the old right. Goldwater would be a democrat today.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
I agree with LL about the right going waaaay right, and the dems going to the right. At least what used to be the old right. Goldwater would be a democrat today.

:laugh:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As THe USA steadily moves to the right, I somewhat believe that much of it can be attributed to Karl Rove like proaganda---with assists from Reagan and Gingrich---and various other thinkers.

Fourty years ago most people stated that they were Liberal---and registered with the democratic party---as teh party teh represented the common man---and by in large opposing that were the Republicans---who were the party of big business. While the Presidency might ping pong back and forth, by in large, the legislative branch was mostly democratic monopoly.

The beginning of the end for that trend was the kindergarden taunt---Liberal Liberal Liberal. Which by Madison Ave. logic became the generic equalalent of having bad breath, BO, and in general being socially unacceptable---and as soon as the voter even accepted that taunt and taint---they tuned out to the fact that the alternative is buying--lock stock and barrel a Republican policy that is often worce----and we now see biased tax policy, a failed war on terror, and the fact government no longer works as witnessed by Katrina.

Do we need better Democratic counter propaganda---or a more intelligent electorate?
Or is there no hope for the USA?

And what bhappened to measuring sucess by results---and not slogans?

Amazing all these threads pretty much stating the same thing.

I've said this years ago.

It's pure Marketing (Brainwashing) Genuis.

Tell the weak minded they don't like something enough times and they won't like it.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aisengard
EZduzit is right, civil rights and women rights were considered 'extreme liberal ideals' 100 years ago. Liberalism is the ideology of the future. Conservatism is the ideology of the past. When people talk about the 'good old days', they're talking about the 90's, before the Bush catastrophe. Bush and his neo-conservatism has effectively brought our country back to 1991.

So, you can take your pick, but I'll choose liberalism. It has been and always will be the winning ideology anyway. That is, unless conservatives have their way and armageddon is brought about, which is the only way the conservative ideology can 'win'. Face it, conservatism is counter-productive. Anti-progress. History has shown it, and history will continue to show it.

Liberalism was the ideology of the future while it was still liberalism. Socialism is a "back to the future" ideology, i.e. things were better when the king and his government protected us before we had the dangers inherent to liberty. Were socialism actually progressive, it would be optimistic instead of pessimistic.

There was a time when our parents protected us from the dangers inherent to liberty. They kept us away from the edges of cliffs when we played, for example, and made sure the food in the frig wasn't rotten or that we didn't eat the ant poison. It seems to me you make some basically flawed assumptions, for example that everybody who reaches a certain age is in fact a responsible adult. You assume that all those who think some people may need some help beyond the arbitrary age of adulthood are evil and out to control them. Is that what you think of your parents or all parents. It strikes me that you are given to a rather absolutist way of thinking and that in fact, the pessimism is all yours, no?

Where the analogy breaks down, is that parents (for the most part) love their children and take care of them because they want what is best for them. Our "parents" in government don't care about their "children" unless it means getting that "childs" vote and filling the "parents" pockets.

 

[senseamp]

I don't see what's bad about being liberal. It just means you are for liberty.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Vic
The OP's complaint wouldn't be an issue if liberals were still liberal. It's not that the USA is moving steadily to the right, it's that the left has been moving steadily to the extreme left.

:thumbsup:

I've been saying that for some time now.

One can say anything. Why isn't it that the nation has polarized with both sides becoming more extreme?

And that's the truth. The left is moving further left, the right is moving further right, and the middle has found itself unrepresented. Both parties are in the business of doing nothing more than making sure it's members believe the other party is to blame for all of today's problems, while they alone have all the answers.

The Democrat and Republican parties today are nothing more than religions. Look at how they operate, the structures, the preaching, the money flowing in.

Praise Jeebus!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see what's bad about being liberal. It just means you are for liberty.

There's nothing wrong with liberty. But the modern American liberal has nothing to do with liberty. Modern American conservatives and liberals are both about control. They may want to control different parts and in different ways, but rest assured they both want control over your life.

 

[Blackjack2000]

Originally posted by: BoberFett


And that's the truth. The left is moving further left, the right is moving further right, and the middle has found itself unrepresented. Both parties are in the business of doing nothing more than making sure it's members believe the other party is to blame for all of today's problems, while they alone have all the answers.

The Democrat and Republican parties today are nothing more than religions. Look at how they operate, the structures, the preaching, the money flowing in.

Praise Jeebus!

I see evidence of the right moving further to the right in the things they are fighting for: privitization of Social Security, elimination of the estate tax, massive tax cuts for the rich, reduced social spending. Where is the evidence of the Democrats moving further to the left? Of course there are fringe elements to any party, but the last democratic presidential cantidate, John Kerry was pretty moderate, and Hillary Clinton the next Democratic hopeful has mastered the art of falling into the non-controversial center of every debate.

BTW, I am not a Democrat, I vote for them only because it gives the greatest chance of keeping the slightly more dangerous Republicans out of office

 

[ProfJohn]

Guys the idea of which direction the parties have moved is based solely on personal beliefs and opinions. Look at the people who have commented on this, the ones we know that tend to be to the left talk about the Republicans moving to the extreme right, while claiming that the Democrats are still near the middle or even moving to the right themselves. While those of us on the right talk about how the Democratic Party has moved to the extreme right.

I think it can be said that both parties are moving towards the outer reaches of their political view points. The movement on the left is driven by the anti-war secular progressives while on the right it is moved by the religious right. Things are no different now than they have been for the last 20+ years. When it comes to the primaries you move to the right/left, and for the national election you move to the middle, just as they have been for as long as I can remember.

I think both sides can point to examples of behavior and say ?look how they are moving to the extreme? but that has been going on for years.