khad
29th April 2010, 07:07
Real ones, ie delusional cappies. I think this exchange just illustrates the degree to the political culture of the United States is such an aberration. This is taken from the TYT blog comments.
Me: Guess none of you liberals are capable of admitting that child rape is backed with American money. Dishonesty and racism--I should not have expected more.
EveningStarNM: You're an idiot. Liberals are the ones who want to get out of Afghanistan. We'd love to stop the bacha bazi and we hate anything that exploits children. So-called conservatives, on the other hand, don't care so much if they can make money from it.
<some time passes, I get into an argument with another liberal>
Me: In fact, the mujahideen coup against Daoud was in part orchestrated by the West, since the pro-American King Zahir Shah had been ousted by the modernizing nationalist Daoud. Those mujahideen were groomed by the ISI and CIA to be the shock troops against the government of Afghanistan under Daoud and later the PDPA.
Without that lifeline, they would have been crushed quickly, and Afghanistan wouldn't have undergone the terrible civil war.
But here's why your call for responsibility is so odious and hypocritical. The United States turned a completely marginal group of rebel pederasts into the national government of an entire country through military assistance spanning decades. And when those pederasts took control of the country, riding on the backs of American troops, the USA simply looks the other way and then gives them more money to perpetrate their crimes.
An American liberal like you has no right telling anyone to "take responsibility."
EveningStarNM: I assume that you want allies in ridding the world of this obscene practice, but you go out of your way to insult the people who already were on your side. You've criticized exactly the wrong people and missed those who should have been your target completely."
Me: "Allies? You mean the pedophile police?
EveningStarNM: "Thanks. Now I'm convinced, and I know that I won't find anything interesting in anything that you write ever again."
And now we start getting to the real issue at hand...
Me: What's your hangup over the term liberal?All I ever see from mainstream "liberals" is continued economic, military, and moral support for a criminal Northern Alliance government that continues to rape women and children. Tell me, what's so important about holding on to this political moniker that the corporate Democratic Party has diluted into meaninglessness?
EveningStarNM:I don't have a hangup. I do, however, like words to be used correctly. You're redefining the term in ways that no one else on the planet has ever considered. In other words,Nothing you're saying makes any sense. I realize that you don't understand that, but since you obviously lack the capacity to listen, I don't much care.
Me: If you want to go to definitions, classical liberals were the early capitalist theorists like Say, Smith, and Ricardo, who favored the idealized open market and individual freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
This line of thought has its direct descendants through such 20th century economists such as Hayek and Mises. This is in fact how "liberal" is commonly understood in the European context and in most of the world. For the rest of the world, "Liberal" is virtually synonymous with the right wing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Liberal_Democrat_and_Reform_Party
The American definition commonly used by the "left" actually traces its roots to the New Deal, taking the line about personal freedom, decoupling it from the faith in the free market (but still adhering to a capitalist framework), and grafting it onto state-managed (but not planned) development.
In the history of political thought, "left" liberalism is an aberration specific only to a certain time period in the United States. Indeed, there was already pushback during the New Deal and especially after WW2.
You may or may not recall the term "Cold War Liberalism." In simplest terms, it was political centrism. Going to historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr's influential piece The Vital Center, LIBERALISM (writ large) rejected the "namby-pamby," "unmanly," "weak," and "soft" "progressivism" of Henry Wallace, who actually embodied more of the ideals of the New Deal.
Cold War liberalism was absolutely invested in hostility towards the Left and committed to the maintenance of a vast military-industrial complex exercising dominion over an expansive American empire.
Which is why I completely reject this semantic game of rehabilitating a term that has consciously defined itself from the highest echelons as an ideology committed to corporate capitalism, empire, and political centrism.
Believe me, I'm well aware of the historical genealogy of our political culture--more aware of it, in fact, than you. And I've been very patient with you about it.
So you should file your indignation over supposedly "redefining terms" in ways that "no one else on the planet has ever considered" under the already over-stuffed folder of wishful thoughts and American provincialism.
<after some more flaming>
EveningStarNM: Jeezus, you're thick. You have no understanding of Democratic politics at all, do you?
I hate to waste time trying to educate people who have no desire to learn, but I'll say this for the record: The Democratic Party is a coalition, and many of it's members (of which I am not one) and supporters are opposed to the occupation. Only some of the Democratic Party's members are liberals -- whether classical or reformed -- while others are progressives. In fact, there are even some socialist and libertarian members, two groups who adamantly oppose each other, and other who simply love cats.
You need to avoid political commentary until you can learn enough to stop looking so foolish. Politics is a process by which groups of people get together to work toward a common goal. Politics is about relationships. In political terms, you would be considered a wife beater.
Me: Did I ever bash progressives or socialists?
Actually, you are the one acting like the abusive spouse. For years socialists and "progressives" have been marginalized by that party of corporate cronies and DLC fatcats, and here you are prattling on about how they should remain in an organization who continues to marginalize their voices. This same organization's leadership is also more or less ironfisted in its support of the war in Afghanistan, with Mr. Obama and his ilk escalating it beyond what Bush has done.
There is no "relationship" to be had with an organization so fundamentally hostile to genuine anti-imperialists. It was in fact in the Democratic Party's campaign strategy in the 2008 election to sell Afghanistan as a "good war" that should be fought in place of the Iraq War.
You should avoid political commentary until 1) you learn a thing or two about American political history and 2) stop being such an utter hypocrite.
The American people need real choices, not just a choice between 90% imperialist and 100% imperialist.
Me: Guess none of you liberals are capable of admitting that child rape is backed with American money. Dishonesty and racism--I should not have expected more.
EveningStarNM: You're an idiot. Liberals are the ones who want to get out of Afghanistan. We'd love to stop the bacha bazi and we hate anything that exploits children. So-called conservatives, on the other hand, don't care so much if they can make money from it.
<some time passes, I get into an argument with another liberal>
Me: In fact, the mujahideen coup against Daoud was in part orchestrated by the West, since the pro-American King Zahir Shah had been ousted by the modernizing nationalist Daoud. Those mujahideen were groomed by the ISI and CIA to be the shock troops against the government of Afghanistan under Daoud and later the PDPA.
Without that lifeline, they would have been crushed quickly, and Afghanistan wouldn't have undergone the terrible civil war.
But here's why your call for responsibility is so odious and hypocritical. The United States turned a completely marginal group of rebel pederasts into the national government of an entire country through military assistance spanning decades. And when those pederasts took control of the country, riding on the backs of American troops, the USA simply looks the other way and then gives them more money to perpetrate their crimes.
An American liberal like you has no right telling anyone to "take responsibility."
EveningStarNM: I assume that you want allies in ridding the world of this obscene practice, but you go out of your way to insult the people who already were on your side. You've criticized exactly the wrong people and missed those who should have been your target completely."
Me: "Allies? You mean the pedophile police?
EveningStarNM: "Thanks. Now I'm convinced, and I know that I won't find anything interesting in anything that you write ever again."
And now we start getting to the real issue at hand...
Me: What's your hangup over the term liberal?All I ever see from mainstream "liberals" is continued economic, military, and moral support for a criminal Northern Alliance government that continues to rape women and children. Tell me, what's so important about holding on to this political moniker that the corporate Democratic Party has diluted into meaninglessness?
EveningStarNM:I don't have a hangup. I do, however, like words to be used correctly. You're redefining the term in ways that no one else on the planet has ever considered. In other words,Nothing you're saying makes any sense. I realize that you don't understand that, but since you obviously lack the capacity to listen, I don't much care.
Me: If you want to go to definitions, classical liberals were the early capitalist theorists like Say, Smith, and Ricardo, who favored the idealized open market and individual freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
This line of thought has its direct descendants through such 20th century economists such as Hayek and Mises. This is in fact how "liberal" is commonly understood in the European context and in most of the world. For the rest of the world, "Liberal" is virtually synonymous with the right wing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Liberal_Democrat_and_Reform_Party
The American definition commonly used by the "left" actually traces its roots to the New Deal, taking the line about personal freedom, decoupling it from the faith in the free market (but still adhering to a capitalist framework), and grafting it onto state-managed (but not planned) development.
In the history of political thought, "left" liberalism is an aberration specific only to a certain time period in the United States. Indeed, there was already pushback during the New Deal and especially after WW2.
You may or may not recall the term "Cold War Liberalism." In simplest terms, it was political centrism. Going to historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr's influential piece The Vital Center, LIBERALISM (writ large) rejected the "namby-pamby," "unmanly," "weak," and "soft" "progressivism" of Henry Wallace, who actually embodied more of the ideals of the New Deal.
Cold War liberalism was absolutely invested in hostility towards the Left and committed to the maintenance of a vast military-industrial complex exercising dominion over an expansive American empire.
Which is why I completely reject this semantic game of rehabilitating a term that has consciously defined itself from the highest echelons as an ideology committed to corporate capitalism, empire, and political centrism.
Believe me, I'm well aware of the historical genealogy of our political culture--more aware of it, in fact, than you. And I've been very patient with you about it.
So you should file your indignation over supposedly "redefining terms" in ways that "no one else on the planet has ever considered" under the already over-stuffed folder of wishful thoughts and American provincialism.
<after some more flaming>
EveningStarNM: Jeezus, you're thick. You have no understanding of Democratic politics at all, do you?
I hate to waste time trying to educate people who have no desire to learn, but I'll say this for the record: The Democratic Party is a coalition, and many of it's members (of which I am not one) and supporters are opposed to the occupation. Only some of the Democratic Party's members are liberals -- whether classical or reformed -- while others are progressives. In fact, there are even some socialist and libertarian members, two groups who adamantly oppose each other, and other who simply love cats.
You need to avoid political commentary until you can learn enough to stop looking so foolish. Politics is a process by which groups of people get together to work toward a common goal. Politics is about relationships. In political terms, you would be considered a wife beater.
Me: Did I ever bash progressives or socialists?
Actually, you are the one acting like the abusive spouse. For years socialists and "progressives" have been marginalized by that party of corporate cronies and DLC fatcats, and here you are prattling on about how they should remain in an organization who continues to marginalize their voices. This same organization's leadership is also more or less ironfisted in its support of the war in Afghanistan, with Mr. Obama and his ilk escalating it beyond what Bush has done.
There is no "relationship" to be had with an organization so fundamentally hostile to genuine anti-imperialists. It was in fact in the Democratic Party's campaign strategy in the 2008 election to sell Afghanistan as a "good war" that should be fought in place of the Iraq War.
You should avoid political commentary until 1) you learn a thing or two about American political history and 2) stop being such an utter hypocrite.
The American people need real choices, not just a choice between 90% imperialist and 100% imperialist.