Far left - US/UK definition

You mean demagogue up a storm of hatred for the "right wing warmongers" I believe, which you have nicely spun with the term warmonger, leftist style, while you DEhumanize the sufferings of the Israelis and others at the hands of jihadists by playing on sympathy for only this one group.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-24-2005 05:15 AM

I trained with some IDF officers once - they told me they had no problem gunning down arabs or their children* "because they breed like rats and they are rats". This was a common view amongt all of the IDF i have encounted.* and before any one asks - yes they specifically said children.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 24-Jul-2005 05:33 AM

I see that you disagree with me about the Marxist roots of all this, but that's all right. Apparently we agree on the actual facts of the situation, whatever their source.

I'm sure such attitudes exist, people being what we are, but such anecdotes don't prove anything about the causes and meanings of specific events.Arabs express similar dehumanizing hatred of Israelis and Jews too.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-24-2005 05:25 AM

Great - so we can discount your abortion story in any furture debate about the subject.

That confirmed a point arach (I think) was making, and was quite appropriate in context, as he had referenced the personal experience of Roe in Roe v Wade. You could take him to task for the relevance of Roe's feelings if you like. Your anecdote, on the other hand, exists in a conceptual vacuum, without context, without relation to Jenin or any particular event, implying a broad relevance but without any proof of it. It may be a way the IDF had of letting off steam with attitudes not shared by Israelis at large.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-24-2005 05:48 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 07-24-2005 05:48 AM

Absolutely false. The position of today's "conservatives" is religious hegemony, profligate spending, submission to corporate interests, and government intrusion into every aspect of our lives, all committed via whatever unprincipled, unethical acts it takes to gain and maintain power. You're a little out of date. The Bushes, starting with senior (and possibly related to his involvment in Reagan's attempted assassination) have co-opted conservatism. Maybe the party means something else in your country but in mine, there's no way to describe the party of Coburn, DeLay, and the Bush clan as the party of individual freedom and initiative.

I think we're going around in circles on teh sask Conservative Party, so it's time to put that one to reast.As for rich leftists: Soros, as one example, is one of the wealthiest men on earth, and supports MoveOn.org, the democratic Party, Air America (I think) and other anti-conservative, leftist organizations. NewYork votes Democrat, and most of the bigger names on Wall Street are part of that contingency.You misunderstood this comment of mine: "... today's conservatives are largely what the liberals of the early 60's were (classical liberals), and today's liberals have left them behind altogether." I was saying that the liberals of today have left the liberals of the early 60's behind altogether. There is next to no relationship or similarity between them. Ted Kennedy today has almost nothing in commin with JFK. But, George Bush has much in common with JFK. That is further what I meant, when i said that today's conservatives are very similar to the Liberals of teh early 60's.

I disagree. Full rights includes the concet of a civil union, full partner pension and inhertitance rights, non employment and living discrimination, etc.

Does that include the privacy of the unborn child?

Mainly, but not entirely, it is the left that opposes the war, because it fails to see its purpose, in some cases. In other cases it opposes the war for these various reasons: It is reflexively against anything the Republicans would decide; For cynical political gain; With respect to the far left, because it makes common cause with the islamists against democracy (preferring Marxism).There are also those on the left who support the war, like Thomas Friedman and Christopher Hitchens.But both sides of the debate can argue patriotism.

That's one argument. The other is that the unborn child is the beneficiary of those rights. And yet another is that abortion is a state matter and not federal.

You subscribe to all the famous boogeyman descriptions of the right. And that is a principle reason that the left is losing elections in the US these days: Americans no longer buy the disingenuous scare-mongering, and recognize the right to be as I described it towards the beginning of this thread. Not the some on the right don't use their own boogeyman descriptions of the left - but I carefully avoided those in favour of an objective effort.If you believe that Bush senior may have had something to do with the Reagan assassination attempt then, frankly, you're so conspiracy minded as to be beyond reason.

Faith, I think it is instructive that we disagree on that vital point (the left is Marxist - your position -, versus it is not but losing its way regardless - my position), yet we are consistent in our vision of what is wrong with the left, and how it is moving towards a position that threatens liberal democracy by undermining its foundational principles. It also risks liberal democracy by its failure to understand that it has serious enemies, serious about destroying it.

Boogyman descriptions? I'm sorry, but these things are documented facts, and they were what were responsible for my abandonment of conservatism. Like I said I don't know how things are in Canada - maybe they're different - but here in America the right will employ any dirty trick, any ethical violation, any literally illegal act they can get away with to gain and maintain power. No, they don't. A growing majority of Americans is totally repudiating conservative hegemony. Why do you think Bush appointed Roberts, the most moderate appointee he could have gotten away with? Because pandering to the religious right isn't getting him anywhere with the American people. Because his approval ratings are the lowest they've ever been. Because public support for the positions of conservativism are literally evaporating. Why don't you tell me who John Hinkley was, and then try to make the argument that there's no connection whatsoever. Go on, try. Look it up.And how likely does it seem to you that the Secret Service got lost in Washington DC on the way to the hospital? Look, at this point in regards to the Bush clan, the position that is beyond reasonable is that everything that's happened to them on their rise to power, every lucky break they've ever had at another's expense, is the result of simple co-incidence. Anyone who asserts that it is is ignorant of the facts, in your case probably purposefully.