[Paleopsych] Hoist the left on its own petard
shovland at mindspring.com
Fri Mar 4 02:40:14 UTC 2005
The left is justified in minimizing the Social
Security issue because the Congressional
Budget Office says the system can continue
to pay the current level of benefits until 2052.
Rumsfeld had a relationship with Hussein.
Now he is a Neo-Con. Therefore the Neo-Cons
are allied with the Baathists.
There are an increasing number of people who
proudly identify themselves as liberals. You may
not see us on the news, but we are here, we
are speaking up, and we on the attack.
Hillary is irrelevant. She was sucked in by Bush
and now, like every other Democrat who voted
to abdicate the Congressional power to declare
war, she has no future beyond her current
position. She will be lucky if she doesn't lose
to an anti-war candidate.
From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 6:11 PM
To: The new improved paleopsych list
Subject: [Paleopsych] Hoist the left on its own petard
This is a strong point you make, but irrelevant to my question. I do
want to understand how the left justifies ignoring the Social Security
But to your point: There appears to be a de facto alliance formed
between the radical left - read, anti-capitalist "progressives"- and
radical Islam. Here is Horowitz' column on it last September,
meticulously documented, as is his wont.
this is not a comprehensive piece, but it hits some of the points. The
book details it comprehensively. It suggests the alliance is fairly
widespread, not limited to extremists. I would like to have a liberal
view of the specific points in the book. If Horowitz is onto something,
it bodes ill for the left, something I do not want.
Another less serious example is from Best of the Web (Wall Street
Read the transcription of Jon Stewart's interview of Nancy Soderberg.
Taranto's editorial comments are funny, but read carefully the angst in
Soderberg's view of democracy in the middle east.
My point, which is probably poorly made or else you wouldn't
misunderstand it, is that there is a developing tragedy here. The left
seems stale, irrelevant, and preaching to its own choir. Nationally
people do not apply the label "liberal" to themselves. Notice that
Hillary Clinton has been consistently supportive of the war. She is no
fool. She wants a presidential race and she knows that she can't play
the defense dove like Kerry and still win. But too many Democrats fail
to see what she sees, the nation has moved to the right and she has to
position herself in the center to have a chance to lead.
Where are the exciting new ideas of how to improve lives at home and
abroad? In the past, there were some strong defense hawks - such as John
F. Kennedy - who were quite at home in the Democratic party. There were
interesting ideas. The domestic agenda of LBJ turned out to be a waste,
I suppose, but in some ways it fueled a good development, namely the
1996 alliance between the Republican legislature and Bill Clinton which
reformed welfare and improved the lives of so many.
But now I don't hear anything but obstructionism. Hence my puzzle: Why
the reliance on raw emotion instead of a reasoned approach to social
Michael Christopher wrote:
>>>The Left needs a global vision that is not based on
>supporting Baathists (see www.frontpagemagazine.com
>and look at the discussions about the alliance between
>the left and radical islam).<<
>--Whoa... what percentage of the Left (does that
>include prominent Democrats?) supports radical Islam
>Sounds like an ad hominem, strawman and outright
>slander to me. Unless by "The Left" you mean some
>fringe leftist group not affiliated with the Democrats
>or Greens. If so, you should clarify that.
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>paleopsych mailing list
>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
<< File: ATT00035.html >> << File: ATT00036.txt >>
More information about the paleopsych