dagblog - Comments for "The Evolution of Liberalism"

no one ever said that

Elusive Trope — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:59:07 +0000

In reply to Evolution. Nice concept. Ugg

no one ever said that evolution was an equal opportunity employer

Evolution. Nice concept. Ugg

Ugg the Repug — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:39:53 +0000

In reply to The Evolution of Liberalism

Evolution. Nice concept. Ugg missed it.

I was thinking it was more

moat — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 12:13:00 +0000

In reply to Is this like when a clown

I was thinking it was more like a game of Twister. The co-option of popular messages to make groups attractive on the election market lead to convolutions.

For instance, Goldwater opposed the Great Society in a consistent manner; the remodeling of our social environment was anathema to his idea that free individuals sorted out such matters between themselves. After a couple of decades of living without the apartheid the Goldwater ideal preserved, the public at large did not want to give up the benefits of that social change. So when Reagan reiterated the Goldwater mantra, he added the promise that none of those benefits would be sacrificed by dismantling the instruments that made those changes possible. The "free market" went from being a bellwether of personal liberty to providing for the common good. GHW Bush called the idea "voodoo economics" before he went out and bought his own doll.

So, you are correct, the process did lead to a Newt.

The Dems in 2004 by and large

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 06:36:17 +0000

In reply to The Dems allowed the

The Dems in 2004 by and large followed Rahm's advice, "don't talk about the war". Those that did complain about the war in a large part won. But the Dems took a drubbing.

Of course the Dems let Howard Dean get tossed out of the race for a mere "Yeaaaggghhhhhh", so instead of a charismatic, dynamic candidate, we got Mr. Serious. (I thought Kerry finally started performing in the final debates, but by then it was way too late).

If you let the GOP define the discussion, they're going to win - whether in votes or actual outcomes. Now we're busy drowning government in a bathtub even though we supposedly have the White House & the Senate.

The Dems allowed the

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 06:30:10 +0000

In reply to In 2004, following four years

The Dems allowed the Republicans to win in 2010 by running on nothing but "we suck less than them". They couldn't use a majority in both houses and the presidency to implement a stimulus that stimulated enough, a housing program that prevented illegal repossessions, a jobs program that got us down from 9%+ unemployment.

They couldn't or wouldn't even stop a regressive continuation of Bush tax cuts for the rich that makes it impossible to fund our government properly.

The Republicans in principle didn't deserve to win (in strategy yes), but the Democrats deserved to lose.

Is this like when a clown

Richard Day — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 05:43:33 +0000

In reply to The distinction between

Is this like when a clown stands up and pulls a newt out his ass?

The distinction between

moat — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 04:15:00 +0000

In reply to The Evolution of Liberalism

The distinction between "static" and "dynamic" models has a paradoxical element to it.

Since the static models do not make any claim about the future but rely only on being able to identify essential qualities to measure the worthiness of proposed changes, they are not bound by the logic of dialectics that would reveal a pattern to history and the struggles between people. While people get "stuck" in static visions of themselves and others there is also a form of life where people are stuck within narratives of change.

Where things get really weird is the place where both elements are in play simultaneously. For example when a Creationist begins arguing for Social Darwinism, a cognitive bifurcation has taken place. Similarly, when a Marxist dictates what is essentially human, something has been broken into two.

(No subject)

Richard Day — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 03:24:43 +0000

In reply to Well deserved. But I thought

In 2004, following four years

Richard Day — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 23:25:24 +0000

In reply to The Evolution of Liberalism

In 2004, following four years of the worst Presidential Administration in decades the repubs were voted back into office; they had both Houses in Congress.

Two years following our greatest economic crash since the crash of '29, the American People (whoever the hell that is) permitted the repubs to take over the House and made gains in the Senate.

Frankly I think the repubs will retain the House, take over the Senate and take over the Executive reins.

This is the Land of Bilks and Phonies.

FOX News rules the airways along with the fascist radio talk shows.

Liberals barely represent half of the minority party in this country.

We owned both Houses of Congress and the WH for a brief period of time and we were unable to get Obama's nominations thru and failed to pass a budget.

Basically, the American People are dupes; they buy repub tweets and shamwows along with corporate owned politicians.

Quote:

Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement.

On the other hand :

41% of Republicans still doubt Obama was born in the US

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...id=I73JKpRHNF4

'Liberalism' is dead in America.

Let the Corporations rein forever!

Well deserved. But I thought

Oxy Mora — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 23:15:59 +0000

In reply to I hereby render unto Donal

Well deserved.

But I thought the image of sliced meta threads and eggs for breakfast, the smell of coffee and napalm in the air, was a runner up.