Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Campaign 2016

Please tell me that someone with your education is joking. That is utter nonsense and you know it. What are you trying to prove? If you believe in capitalism come out and say it. Ideologue bullshyte again? Anyone who disagrees with you is an ideologue.
There is a clear distinction between the two and if you don't believe me PLEASE read history and don't make it up as you go along.
You are trying to pin a label on me. Don't waste your breath, such a label has not been invented nor will it ever be.
The only classification I accept is human being - and unfortunately it seems that that is not enough nowadays.
Your claim flies in the face of history, my friend. I am disappointed.

Not to argue with the venerable Chomsky, but...
Health insurance was indeed important to Eisenhower as can be witnessed Here.
Unfortunately not much seemed to come from it so despite the fact that it was pretty mainstream, Congress still didn't put forth an effort to make it happen. Unlike Chomsky and yourself, I really don't remember those years since I was just a wee tyke. On the other hand it could have been nothing more than platitudes passed out to the masses when Ike, nor Congress, ever had any intention of collecting the taxes or creating the programs to insure less fortunate Americans. Nothing came of it then just as nothing has come of it now despite its mainstream popularity.

Now this is a jewel! And the reason I so admire Chomsky. He recognizes the genuine takeaway of the Sanders phenomenon. Even though he minces words a bit here, the fact is that Sanders has deeply affected the future politics of this country. In fact, even though he will lose this election, he has planted seeds in the minds of the next generation. A huge generation of voters who want more from government and are better connected, through social media, than any generation in the past. Perhaps, because he lost, he will be better remembered than if he won and then failed to bring these seeds to fruition himself. His acolytes will carry on and the oligarchs will eventually be toppled.

Excuse me! a late edit to the above post...

Something did indeed come of it!

I am in total agreement with you on that one.

Zeke, I'm trying to hold the mirror so you can see it, but you have to look at it in order for it to work. You have expressed here extreme left views and said anyone who doesn't agree isn't credible. You seem to dis anyone who doesn't hold with your views. You "pronounce" who is, or is not, "progressive." Well, my friend, you are not the arbiter of who is "progressive." I have provided independent sources for all of my claims about people's political views, yet this is not "proof." You see why I have difficulty swallowing the labeling? What, pray tell, is the difference between your labeling and a Tea Party adherent? Seriously.

Mirror? Anyone? I've got label printer here in my office you can borrow. Feel free to continue to label everything...

My god, man, I'm talking about history. AS I SAID - both communism (under Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, pick your poison) and Fascism (whether Mussolini, Hitler, or Franco) are totalitarian systems. It has nothing to do with the "philosophy" underlying how they got there. As I said "Fascism and communism may start from opposite ends of the spectrum, but they get to the same place by different paths." Some have argued that Hitler was not totalitarian "enough" because he allowed private companies to continue to exist, so he was only "authoritarian" - allowing some semblance of a private life. As I also said, I doubt the victims recognized the niceties of their political positions. "The state" seeks complete control over the lives of their subjects - they just give their excuse for seizing such control different labels. What, pray tell, distinguishes a gulag, a reeducation camp, or a concentration camp? Do you think the internees cared?

My use of the term "ideologue" is self-defensive. It is because of your persistent discounting of any opposing view, or even, it seems, just a more subtle view. I've consistently said I agree with many of Bernie Sanders' goals, yet youwant to label me (let me make a list)capitalist, warmonger, Hillary sycophant, ignorant, retrograde, non-progressive....)
Go back, read the thread. I'll wait. I'm just trying to inject a little perspective.

Apparently you are the one who needs to look. My extreme left views are called democratic principles. If that makes me an extremist so be it. You have tried to straddle a middle ground that does not exist. You are trying to defend something (not sure what) but without accepting the principles of what you espouse. As such, I ask you, without malice, who is the ideologue?
I have never said that I determine anything except - to a limited extent - my own destiny. I have expressed a view that is widely held amongst progressives that Hillary is not a progressive and I have backed it up with facts regarding her record and her choices.
You seem to think that because she is better than Trump that makes her progressive. The bar, as I've said many times, is way too low.
You are comparing people and not systems. That is not what determines the basis of a society. Mussolini was hung by his feet and set on fire BY THE ITALIAN PEOPLE! Mao died of old age and much of what he did in China remains today. You can agree or disagree with his policies, but that is YOUR reading of them - not history's.
Yes there are despots on the left and on the right. Of course, there are no saviors. I am not defending everything that ANY ONE PERSON does. But you seem to be doing that.
Again, it is disappointing.
You also seem to be ascribing to socialism the worst actors. Why is that? Do you see them as the only representatives of the idea of socialism? If so, you are, once again incorrect.
BTW I did not say that you were wrong to defend capitalism - just stand up for whatever principles you believe in. That way we can speak to each other as intelligent human beings which I believe we both are.
To call me extreme is funny, actually. I always thought that democracy meant the free expression of ideas and the OBLIGATION to dissent when one group is oppressed. I must be mistaken.

I feel like I need to quote Ronald Reagan (whom I despise) here: " there you go again!" So, again, because I disagree, I'm not a progressive, I'm an ideologue, etc., etc., etc. Do you read what you write?

Did you look at anything that I posted comparing the records of Sanders and Clinton? How can one carry on a dialogue when only one conversant's opinions matter?

Where does the notion come from that the system is "rigged"? As has been pointed out, Hillary Clinton is winning her party's vote by millions of votes. That is represented by a hundreds of pledged delegate lead. While the margin of her lead may shrink, out will not disappear. Mathematics, not superdelegates, will determine the outcome. Is that not democracy in action?

It is apparent that you have entered some zone where you only hear the sound of your own voice. I have no idea what you're talking about.
System is rigged but I will repeat for the 200th time - if you read my posts I wouldn't have to - I was talking ABOUT THE NOMINATION PROCESS IN GENERAL AND NOT HILLARY OR BERNIE.
I read what you wrote and posted and I don't agree with your conclusion. Now: before anything else READ MINE and stop attributing things to me that I never said. Do me the same courtesy I did you.

Just in case it needs repeating here is yet another reason why Clinton is not progressive IN MY OPINION - that is if I dare have one
Hillary Clinton Super-Lobbyist says...