To be fair, I've only seen Bowling for Columbine, but from what I hear it's representative. There's a "fact seed, " as it were, to form a tangible foundation for whatever polemic he wants to launch at any given time.
I simply choose to give him the benefit of the doubt since conservatives describe him as libs describe Rush, practically word for word, and the description of Rush is inaccurate, so Moore's might be too.
Understandable and laudable; I'm just not sure it's justified here.
But, again, only seen the one film.Indeed I do, and as I say, that was less a takeover by the left than abandonment by the right. Which is true of a great deal; by the time Reconstruction ended the Republicans were well on the way to being the conservative and Democrats the liberal party. The only real exceptions there was segregation, but the Corrupt Bargain of 1876 made it an issue on which both parties were in fairly solid agreement. There were individual exceptions among Republicans from time to time, but for the most part both parties left it alone; meanwhile Democrats embraced things like the Grange, Free Silver, labor, suffrage etc. and Republicans generally watched mutely or resisted. The one exception is a debatable one; Prohibition was "liberal" in the sense of being a change from the norm, but not really more liberating; on the other hand, Dems ran hot and cold on that one (Al Smith and FDR, for example. )
Well, I'd want to add women's suffrage to that list for the GOP, they were the main push for that. But what I mean is that lib/con rotates a lot, often not really too associated with either party, sometimes with one more than the other. I think it was more connected to the GOP at the time.
Were they, now? I know suffrage had a lot of support among early abolitionists, but I wasn't aware of a strong GOP push for it. The departure of the Republicans from liberalism after the Civil War is analogous to Americas abandonment of it after WWII: The disenfranchised will always be "liberal" at least to the extent of wanting change that empowers them; once that change is affected it's very easy for those "liberals" to become "conservative" regarding any ADDITIONAL empowerment that would dilute their own. Though I still strongly believe what actually empowered the Civil War GOP was wealthy Northern industrialists who were generally quite conservative about anything but slavery, which sent most of their revenue to Southern plantation owners.
For good or ill, I think he was committed to being dispassionate, which may have hurt him as much generally as it did in this instance. Remember, up until the days of Clinton and Obama Democrats had distressing tendency to come of as wonkish, and thought a firm grasp of policy should make having the charisma of a damp sponge irrelevant. Unfortunately politics remains, in a very real sense, a popularity contest, so charisma is indispensable; were that not the case Nixon would've mopped the floor with JFK whether I like it or not.
Yes, there is that. But his running mate seemed to get it with the 'You're no JFK' comment. I guess no one likes the necessity of charisma in politics but it's there, for better or worse. Even though I disagree with him Dukakis's answer was fine by me, but at the same time it lacked any passion, so even those who didn't dislike him more over that specifically had little to put in his plus column. I think if he'd said "Realistically, if something like that came up, I know I'd want the person dead, but we don't make laws around revenge or the desire for revenge from the victim's and their families" I think he might have avoided looking quite so removed.
Bentsen would've been a lot more electable than Dukakis (though I'm not sure what the nation would've thought of two supposed Texans contesting the Presidency) but TX and the nation would've been a lot better off had he stayed in the Senate. Dukakis was simply not ready for the national stage, and probably not fully aware how much less liberal the rest of the nation was than Boston. Insulation from the prevailing wind in national politics is a danger of nominating Governors for President....
No, because the courts are the proper place to handle criminal acts. Part of civil disobedience, almost invariably, is deliberately breaking a law because enforcing it will demonstrate its absurdity. If you think a given criminal act shouldn't be criminal it's natural to advocate it be committed openly, and just as natural to expect prosecution in a court of law. If prosecuting a criminal act makes the law look stupid, whose fault is that?
To a degree... I think abortion should be criminalized, I do not favor firebombing abortion clinics or assaulting - verbally or physically - it's clients, supporters, etc. So it's a fine line and much slimmer depending on the case. I hardly think the ACLU should have been disbanded over it, but no organization should actually encourage criminal behavior even if it's parking tickets.
I'm pretty sure murder and assault are already illegal in most states.
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God" and if a law is unjust there's nothing wrong with disobeying it, but the courts are still obligated to prosecute it. Was the Southern Poverty Law Center wrong to organize lunch counter sit ins? Because Jim Crow was the law of the South, after all. Violating unjust laws solely for the purpose of exposing that injustice in the courts forced to prosecute is a key means of reversing such laws. It carries an obvious price tag: If the courts do their job violators will be convicted and sentenced, but as long as one accepts that I see nothing wrong with it, and often something very right.Local autonomy often means some very stupid things can be enacted on a local level with a relatively small number of people supporting them. Put another way, in small areas with (relatively) small populations it's easier for a fringe movement to gain a majority, but the left isn't threatening anything like that on a national level. The fringe right very much is, and has been for some time.
5% of the country's population is in NYC, so local is very questionable there, same as a mayor of my little village has no credential to be president but Guilianni did. Considering the pop of that city is on par with the combined population of the plains states, I wouldn't call it 'local' in that way.
Well, when it threatens to become federal law the way DoMA did, let me know; last I heard Giuliani couldn't even win a state primary. TX has more people than NYC, but I don't expect a federal concealed carry law any time soon (though I think it's more likely than a federal salt ban. )
Most people have forgotten how bad the abuses got before government regulation and reform was instituted; people don't pay tribute to Wilson for ending child labor today, but the truth is both he and TR were instrumental in doing so. So it's something of a red herring to say garment industry workers aren't locked into factories that will kill them all if a fire breaks out; it's true, but only because when that ACTUALLY HAPPENED laws were passed to prevent it. There are far fewer abuses NOW because the left agitated for their reform THEN. The suggestion by some (and I'm not pointing a finger at you here) that those abuses were made up out of whole cloth and the reforms should thus be removed makes some of us very nervous because we know better. Obviously there's a limit to how much government regulation is needed, and that's a lot of why I'm a socialist rather than a full blown communist (another large part of the reason is that I don't trust anyone, state or private entity, with complete control. ) Again, what we're debating is where to strike the balance, but in doing so we're talking about some form of socialism rather than pure capitalism OR communism.
Well, there is no doubt those abuses happened, that some were exaggerated and that some are trying to be downplayed beyond reality, I don't really know anyone on my side - of note and of sanity - who does so in the extreme.
Which I suppose is a kind of victory for liberalism; my main concern is that the suggestion illegal aliens be given amnesty contingent on employment (meaning employers can legally hire them secure in the knowledge no one will risk deportation by reporting abuse) and the push for "free" trade in countries with no environmental, product safety or human rights policies will erode those reforms for the sake of economic competition.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
If you could ban some words from political discourse, which would you ban?
- 13/03/2010 06:35:25 AM
1313 Views
all of them.
- 13/03/2010 04:42:02 PM
556 Views
I'm sure the one-fingered salute would turn up more frequently, then.
- 14/03/2010 02:31:34 PM
497 Views
Two: Bipartisan and progressive.
- 13/03/2010 05:14:36 PM
518 Views
"progressive" was created to get around the "liberal" label the right uses
- 13/03/2010 06:00:40 PM
535 Views
Does the right really have the power to make a word dirty?
- 13/03/2010 06:27:46 PM
550 Views
considering that "liberal" has taken the place of "communist" for "something bad" i'd say yes
- 13/03/2010 07:07:21 PM
486 Views
There's a flawed premise in there though
- 13/03/2010 10:43:58 PM
562 Views
Re: There's a flawed premise in there though
- 14/03/2010 09:34:58 AM
598 Views
Re: There's a flawed premise in there though
- 14/03/2010 02:56:45 PM
550 Views
If that's the case you should try to reclaim the word, not demonize it.
- 15/03/2010 08:14:11 AM
610 Views
It probably will be down the road
- 15/03/2010 04:59:58 PM
628 Views
Good...? 
- 15/03/2010 09:17:22 PM
673 Views
- 15/03/2010 09:17:22 PM
673 Views
Re: Good...?
- 15/03/2010 10:20:53 PM
699 Views
- 15/03/2010 10:20:53 PM
699 Views
Re: Good...?
- 29/03/2010 04:15:16 PM
603 Views
- 29/03/2010 04:15:16 PM
603 Views
Joel and Isaac prepare to hijack another thread
- 30/03/2010 01:15:40 AM
736 Views
- 30/03/2010 01:15:40 AM
736 Views
As long as I get top billing.
- 03/04/2010 11:54:38 AM
687 Views
- 03/04/2010 11:54:38 AM
687 Views
Re: As long as I get top billing.
- 03/04/2010 12:50:54 PM
635 Views
- 03/04/2010 12:50:54 PM
635 Views
Re: As long as I get top billing.
- 04/04/2010 01:33:27 PM
555 Views
- 04/04/2010 01:33:27 PM
555 Views
Re: As long as I get top billing.
- 04/04/2010 02:59:07 PM
684 Views
- 04/04/2010 02:59:07 PM
684 Views
Re: As long as I get top billing.
- 06/04/2010 03:18:15 AM
617 Views
- 06/04/2010 03:18:15 AM
617 Views
Heh. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. *edit*
I woulkd say the left made the word liberal dirty
- 15/03/2010 05:15:24 PM
483 Views
it must be a terrible terrible burden on you to have all the answers to everything... 
*NM*
- 15/03/2010 11:08:04 PM
321 Views
*NM*
- 15/03/2010 11:08:04 PM
321 Views
just as being stupid must be a burden for you *NM*
- 16/03/2010 02:06:43 PM
243 Views
what? no sandy vagina comment? you're slipping.... *NM*
- 16/03/2010 02:51:19 PM
275 Views
How's that paranoia treating you?
- 16/03/2010 12:53:31 AM
519 Views
how is that head in sand treating you?
- 16/03/2010 02:19:54 PM
525 Views
Re: how is that head in sand treating you?
- 16/03/2010 09:07:09 PM
672 Views
Which fringe group do you believe I belong to?
- 16/03/2010 10:23:53 PM
426 Views
if all of this is true....
- 16/03/2010 11:17:19 PM
526 Views
Because strong partisanship and actual extremism are two very different things, I'd say. *NM*
- 16/03/2010 11:27:02 PM
266 Views
*NM*
- 16/03/2010 11:27:02 PM
266 Views
I am a militant moderate
- 18/03/2010 01:45:40 PM
466 Views
*NM*
Just because an idea is new DOESN'T mean it constitutes progress, agreed.
- 15/03/2010 08:03:14 AM
576 Views
hope and change 
*NM*
- 14/03/2010 03:32:34 PM
391 Views
*NM*
- 14/03/2010 03:32:34 PM
391 Views
None; if the other side frames an issue better than you, that's your fault, not theirs.
- 15/03/2010 07:55:57 AM
610 Views
Words/phrases that I would abolish:
- 15/03/2010 02:41:51 PM
648 Views
Re: Words/phrases that I would abolish:
- 15/03/2010 04:27:21 PM
629 Views
leave to a liberal to want to ban words they don't like *NM*
- 15/03/2010 05:10:19 PM
263 Views
Re: leave to a liberal to want to ban words they don't like
- 15/03/2010 05:38:24 PM
503 Views
That was weak
- 15/03/2010 05:48:34 PM
491 Views
at least it mirrored your original comment. *NM*
- 15/03/2010 05:53:34 PM
285 Views
to bad it didn't mirror reality
- 15/03/2010 08:33:18 PM
449 Views
you misspoke
- 16/03/2010 12:36:23 AM
586 Views
that is often true but I don't think it is true now
- 16/03/2010 04:12:18 PM
637 Views
Re: that is often true but I don't think it is true now
- 16/03/2010 09:34:42 PM
680 Views
Al Franken is a joke right?
- 16/03/2010 10:31:41 PM
487 Views
Re: Al Franken is a joke right?
- 17/03/2010 05:34:25 PM
530 Views