The film itself, Life and Debt, opens here in the next few weeks.

Jz

quote:

---

Originally posted by BobaMike:
Relax people...its on the Just Movies forum now. No big deal.

---

Yes, Peter did mention that when he locked it.

quote:

---

Sounds like the typical self-contradictory claptrap produced by the Far Left...

---

courtesy of some right wing brain-washed extremist...

Far left? Where does this guy lives??

Scary!

Besides, to be called a "leftie" by one of these alienated intolerant right-wingers is far from being an offensive remark. In fact, it's a compliment.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make anyway. I am a moderate, I have conservative and liberal views. But in today's world that makes me a liberal. Unless you are conservative on every single issue, you are considered a liberal by "Conservatives".

We have a republican primary race running here in Texas and one of the candidates labeled the other as a “Liberal” because his voting record showed he had only voted with fellow conservatives 67% of the time. That makes him a liberal? No way. That makes him a conservative with moderate leanings.

I realize that his opponent was only doing it to win, but this indiscriminate and pejorative use of the word “liberal” to represent anything that someone doesn’t like is ridiculous. It demonizes the word and renders it useless for describing true liberal views.

As a side note, I am just curious, have there never been any good liberal politicians or viewpoints? To hear some conservatives talk liberals are to blame for every bad thing that has ever happened. JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ, Lincoln all these guys had some fairly liberal views for their time. Hacks every one of them?

Abolition of Slavery, Voter’s rights, 5 day work week, ending child labor, Social Security, Minimum wage, Medicaid, mandated food and drug standards, federal safety standards, etc, are all these “liberal” issues such an effrontery to conservatives that we can’t bear them?

"Why is the Life And Debt topic closed after 1 post?"

YOU ARE MISS THE POINT.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJH:
yes, it's much better to be associated with Stalin.

---

Stalin was a fascist. The only difference between him, Hitler and Bush is the mustache.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MWRuger:
I realize that his opponent was only doing it to win, but this indiscriminate and pejorative use of the word “liberal” to represent anything that someone doesn’t like is ridiculous. It demonizes the word and renders it useless for describing true liberal views.

---

That's a rather funny complaint, given the history of the word. People like Adam Smith were liberal, until the 20th C., when the word was misappropriated by the socialists (and less extreme versions of same) to describe themselves.

I'd be happy to have it back!

quote:

---

As a side note, I am just curious, have there never been any good liberal politicians or viewpoints? JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ, Lincoln all these guys had some fairly liberal views for their time. Hacks every one of them?

---

Okay, but NONE of those guys had the whacked out points of view that today's "liberals" seem to have.

quote:

---

To hear some conservatives talk liberals are to blame for every bad thing that has ever happened.

---

Aren't they?

Originally posted by JJH:
As a side note, I am just curious, have there never been any good liberal politicians or viewpoints? JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ, Lincoln all these guys had some fairly liberal views for their time. Hacks every one of them?

Okay, but NONE of those guys had the whacked out points of view that today's "liberals" seem to have.

To hear some conservatives talk liberals are to blame for every bad thing that has ever happened.

Aren't they?

End Quote

Wrong JJH, their views were out of “whack” with the times they lived in. Just because we accept them today doesn’t make them any less “wacky” Teddy Roosevelt’s trust busting efforts were clearly an attack on the Liaise Faire economic principles that had been followed through the last half of the 19th Century. He was directly interfering with the way business was being run. Big Business viewed them as an unwarranted attack on the very standard and conservative practices they had always followed.

FDR destroyed and put to rest the entire idea that government had no role in managing the economy or regulating business. This was a stark contrast to conservative politicians of the 20’s who returned as much leeway as possible to business. In fact the idea of Unemployment Insurance and Social Security was so radical it barely made it by the very conservative Supreme Court. FDR would never have been able to do the “wacky” things he did if capitalism in the US had not almost collapsed in 1930.

Lincoln was an abolitionist, and despite what some think may abolition was not the stated primary war goal of the United States government. It was an argument about state’s rights, namely could a state succeed from a voluntarily agreed to compact. (There were, of course, many issues that lead to this war.) Abolition was something Lincoln wanted, but it was not what the Union set out to do. The Emancipation Proclamation was announced until 1863, three years after the war started.

As far as being the source of evil, abolition of slavery, voter’s rights, a 5 day, 40 hour work week, ending child labor, social security, minimum wage, collective bargaining, industrial safety standards, anti-discrimination, universal suffrage, Medicaid, mandated food and drug standards, etc. don’t seem that bad to me. Yet they were clearly going against the status quo and were clearly liberal ideas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJH:
Okay, but NONE of those guys had the whacked out points of view that today's "liberals" seem to have.

---

I've read similar comments by you many times. To be honest, I never figured out the exact definitions of terms like "liberal" etc., but I guess I do qualify as liberal.

Which of my views is wacky? That I am against mistreating foreigners? That I'm against killing people? That I'm against destroying the environment? That I'm against imperialism? That I'm against accepting that previous generations (in my case: the Nazis during WW2 for example) have done bad things? Or that I'm against taking the last money of the poor instead of taking it from big franchises?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marian Schedenig:
Which of my views is wacky? That I am against mistreating foreigners? That I'm against killing people? That I'm against destroying the environment? That I'm against imperialism? That I'm against accepting that previous generations (in my case: the Nazis during WW2 for example) have done bad things? Or that I'm against taking the last money of the poor instead of taking it from big franchises?

---

European politics must be very exciting. In ths US, it's common for ALL candidates on the ballet to be against murder, destruction, and misery; and to favor motherhood and apple pie. We rarely get a real choice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by El Cid:
ths US, it's common for ALL candidates on the ballet to be against murder,

---

Er, make that the "ballot". Ballet is something else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by El Cid:
In ths US, it's common for ALL candidates on the ballet to be against murder, destruction, and misery;

---

Well, Bush obviously isn't. Because murder, destruction and misery are international concerns.

And if I'm against killing people who haven't done anything just because other people in their country have done something, I'm immediately labelled a left wing extremist (happened before on these boards).

In my estimation, the best presidents in U.S. History were Washington, Polk, Reagan, and our current leader. [Additionally, someone such as Calvin Coolidge probably deserves more credit than he receives.]

By far, Ronald Reagan is my favorite.

It is too soon to accurately judge the effects of the Reagan era. I don’t think the full effects of his policies can be completely discerned for another 20 years of so. Too many of his appointees are still in government and not enough papers and memoirs have been released to allow us a full view of exactly what went on. I suspect he will be remembered as great president.

Similiarly, George W. Bush is still in office. While you might approve of the job he has done so far, what if he goes all “socialist” on you over the next three years? I am not suggesting that he will, just that it far too early to render judgment on job not yet completed.

Regarding your comments on Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK and Lincoln as socialists and their polices being undesirable, let me know when you are ready to send your 8 year old son or daughter to work for their 60 hour work week. You won’t have to worry about paying for college because they won’t need to go. Hey! No social security taxes to pay. They can set up their own retirement plan on the 3.00 an hour they’ll get paid. Better hope that they don’t get cancer or loose a hand because then they can’t work and nobody owes them anything. Bonus! If they are black we have a life time employment program.

Maybe you should study some social history and find out what life was like for the bulk of the population before the 20th century, which you seem to want to repeal. Maybe you haven’t noticed, this isn’t 1840. We don’t have an endless frontier to expand into to send malcontents. We know more about the effects of unregulated production not only on workers but on the environment as well. Further, our economy is driven by consumer consumption not government and business purchasing. The great depression proved that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SCimmerian:
Andre<Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist.He was a Communist.A Socialist. A Collectivist . A Thug. And the biggest mass murder of the 20th Century.Fascism is the nationalistic version of Socialism with a militaristic bent.

---

Sorry, but this is only the usual misguided rhetoric we learn from ill history books.

Call these people whatever you want (or they want), but the fact is their only goal was to control people's minds and the government's machine to sustain their (and their supporters) power.

Hitler and Reagans/Bushes achieve this by brainwashing their own population and killing the undesireable people(jews, "third-worlders" - you chose).

Stalin achived it by brainwashing and killing his own people.

So, as you see, there's a HUUUUGE difference...

quote:

---

Originally posted by MWRuger:
Do you really think that we could even be having this discussion if changes hadn’t been made to our social and economic structures? In your pre-20th century world of government and society unless you come from a privileged back ground these things would not be available. Working stiffs don’t need computers they’ll be too tired from the 60 hour week.

---

Fallacious reasoning. Try comparing like with like.

Compare and contrast India and Hong Kong, for example. India had the benefit of 'progressive' ideas, while Hong Kong was neglected by the British and left to the ravages of retrograde government - low taxes, completely free trade, etc.

quote:

---

Bush is a scary guy with an agenda, and it is not Liberty. Bush is a religio/fascist/nationalist that could start wars around the globe. He talks freedom, but his freedom is of the Hegalian variety.

---

BUSH starts global wars?
BUSH is a religious nut?

you're cuckoo methinks...

I am well aware of history, especially the part where Bob Taft, perhaps the greatest of all legislators, tried to tell the populace about its power as consumers. [Don't like meat prices? Don't buy meat. Prices will fall, believe me.] Ever noticed how Circuit City and Best Buy bend over backwards for us? I could take a CD player home, smash it, and return it for free--maybe even get store credit for my trouble. If anything, corporations need protection from us....

Look, I remember when $3.00 used to mean something. Now it doesn't; thank you, FDR, Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, etc.

People are damned to be ruled by stupid, rotten big government if they do not use their Constitutional/democratic power for what it's worth. Good Lord, I don't want the government taking care of me!!! I can--and want the power back--to take care of myself, goddammit! How dare they tell me that I can't make decisions for myself. How dare others let them! Think Enron's bad??? We're doing no better.

As Jefferson noted, "The government which governs best governs least."

As someone else noted, "The closest thing to immortality is a government bureaucracy." [True, indeed.]

Brother Madison: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

Yes, indeed; and, if governments weren't comprised of fallible men, there would be no need to limit the government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bulldog:
At the moment, I'm concerned with some of Bush's domestic decisions

---

I, as an American, feel a whole lot safer because of GWB's "international decisions." I hate to say it, but I believe that if Mr. Gore (or, for that matter, any European leader) were President of the U.S., not much would have been done militarily in the wake of Sept. 11. We'd still be exploring, studying, conferring about our options, and in the end Mr. bin Laden and his associates would all have gotten away. Thanks to President Bush, most of them haven't gotten away, and there's great hope that other terrorist organizations and states may also be stopped in their tracks. I think that is of inestimable value to American citizens.

But I'm not particularly a fan of his environmental policies. And I'm also not the best informed person on environmental issues. Still, if my memory serves me right, none of the other G8 countries (let alone China) had signed the Kyoto Accord before Bush opted not to sign it. My feeling is that European nations also need to make their own contributions (and that goes for anti-terrorist activities as well as environmental policies) or else stop whining about what a bogeyman President Bush is. I'm not that scared.

But maybe this discussion just goes to show that Americans are biased in favor of American foreign policy (generally), and non-Americans don't share that bias. If that's the case, sorry for not being open-minded enough.

Not only am I certain that G.W. Bush doesn't have a copy of YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES, but he is no Sherlock Holmes. He hasn't a clue about the time of day, let alone how to run this country. (Remember when he couldn't name three of the four foreign heads of state posed to him by a reporter? One of those he'd never heard of was pakistan's Pervez Musharraf, the guy he's now praising to the skies as our ally in Pakistan [and whose troops are apparently letting al-Qua'ida and Taliban fighters flit back and forth across the border like so many Monarch butterflies]. "Ah'l remember their names when I need 'em.")

As for Reagan, the man was the greatest fraud ever inflicted on the citizenry of this country. Tax breaks for the wealthy, resulting in a crushing national debt we're still servicing (thanks to Bush, jr.); "prosperity" based on junk-bond sales and failed savings and loans; bankrupting military build-ups resulting in hardware unwanted by the military services, with no trained personnel to operate it anyway; flagrant criminal, unConstitutional activity on the part of RR and his subordinates in the Iran-Conta scandal (with claims by RR that he "couldn't recall" anything -- including the face of Gen. Vessey, Chairman of the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff -- when called in to give a deposition before a special prosecutor), remarks that trees give off more pollution than cars, and that ketchup is a "vegetable" sufficient to help our children build their mind and bodies.

It's bad enough when the snake oil doesn't make you well, but when it makes you even sicker, you have one hell of a beef with the salesman.

Regarding what Al Gore might've done had he been in the Oval Office on Sept. 11, you've got to be pretty damn naive to imagine that any politician would, if handed such a golden opportunity, hesitate to let slip the dogs of war. The only difference is that Gore, having served in Vietnam (which is more than you can say for George W. my-daddy-got-me-a-cushy-spot-in-the-National-Guard Bush) and having seen first-hand the meat-grinder that that war was, would have agonized in private over the consequences of such a momentous decision. But he wouldn't have hesitated, I can assure you.

What does any president do in such a situation? He orders the military to go out and do the job it was trained for. That's pretty much it. Cut-and-dried. Even the Secretary of Defense (and I give Donald Rumsfeld pretty high marks here -- though Henry Kissinger, for whom I have little regard -- once called Rumsfeld, a fellow Nixon lackey, "the most ruthless man [he] ever met.) -- doesn't have day-to-day, operation-by-operaion control over how wars are prosecuted. That's left to the Generals and the commanders on the ground. Bush isn't directing this war any more than ore would've done. There's no talent or special skill involved here, folks. Bush isn't to be lauded for doing what was the proverbial no-brainer. I only wish he hadn't handed the keys to the treasury to rich before the attacks of Sept. 11, so we'd have the money Clinton saved for us that we could now use to pay for this Crusade (which was an incredibly dumb word for Bush to use in his post-9/11 speech).

I was comparing the relative prosperity of the working class of the 1840s to the current working class. My point was that as the working class we are better off after the social policies instituted by Lincoln, FDR, LBJ and Teddy Roosevelt. Without those changes we would probably not be in a position to argue the point over the internet.

I am not sure how the small part you quoted is fallacious in terms of the overall post

BullDog,

I don’t want the government taking care of me, but sometimes problems that are too big for a local or state government require that someone above that level address it.

I agree that most of the benefits we receive as citizens are more likely to flow from a state or local government, but what happens when these are the entities at fault. I doubt that Arkansas would have allowed integrated school systems without Federal pressure. How do you suggest that these kinds of problems be addressed?

Your beef does not seem to be with liberals, but with all government in general, conservatives and liberals alike.

Quote: As Jefferson noted, "The government which governs best governs least."

I wonder if this quote is from before the debacle of the French Revolution or after?