There are a number of ex-Trotskyites who refuse to give up the use of violence as a tool for change. They are warmongers, they are not Leftists. They belong to the War Party not to the Party of Peace. Peace

Don't give up the ship, Mark.
There's more of them than you think. Perhaps even a majority.
It's a very vocal minority that gets all the media attention - that WANTS the media attention. Most Americans are centrists, and that is what these people are.
It would serve us well to treat them as we treat the Iraqi - crush the terrorists and embrace and help the common, non-violent folk. Fortunately, unlike the Iraqi, the rabid liberals are easier to spot.

I'm willing to work them them, and they are willing - it would seem - to work with me...

- Mark

Mark, do you really think you are moderate? I'm just wondering, because for me you support the conservative position vigorously no matter what principles are called on. I would put you on the extreme right, but I could easily be wrong. Just wondering where you put yourself on the spectrum. I am guessing it is solidly conservative.

Isn't this a British site?

muirgeo,

I am extraordinarily conservative, as any Catholic must be...heck, I've got kind words for the Holy Roman Empire and the House of Hapsburg, thats how conservative I am.

My belief is, however, that we can have some agreed-upon ground rules which would allow left and right to live within the same political system - the parts of the manifesto that I excerpted are areas where a conservative can agree. Certainly the writers of the manifesto have opinions I stoutly disagree with - just as one for-instance, I'll bet dollars to donuts that most of the signers are in favor of gay marriage, while I am opposed to it.

That, of course, would be an argument - and we and they would hash it out in the public square and in the by and by the people would rule on it...with there being no finality because the side defeated at the polls is always welcome to try again; but the results of each vote are to be accepted by all sides, most especially the losers.

You should read the manifesto with care - and then go over to Democratic Underground and DailyKos and see how the eminently leftwing views of the manifesto square with those leftists. There is a poison on the left - a rejection of all that is of our civilisation, an embrace of evil.

This is, in my view, because too many non-kook leftists are making common cause with people who are, at bottom, communist in their political orientation (most of them don't self-describe themselves as such, but some do). Communism, like Nazism and fascism, is a pure form of evil - it is horrific and hateful, and no decent human being should have anything to do with it...and yet groups like ANSWER - founded and funded by hard-core communists - are welcomed on your side of the aisle.

Another instance: Moore is a propagandist exactly of the stripe of Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler's cinema propandist...the tools and techniques used by Moore are entirely like those used by Riefenstahl...and yet you on your side consider Moore a reasonable documentary maker, you buy into at least some of his absurd slanders...you've allowed your disdain for Bush and for conservative to warp your good judgement.

Think about it.

Thank you Mark, for finally acknowleging the possiblility of sensibleness of some on the left wing. As you might notice from some of my posts, I usually try to argue based on the facts that I read. I like this site because it's a place for me to read non-MSM news in one place.

Based on what we now know, I think going into Iraq was a mistake, but leaving now would be an even bigger mistake. I think the Iraqis being liberated was a good thing, but I don't think that America should police the world. That should be the role of the UN, and if they ask for our help militarily, so be it. What I saw Bush do was go behind the back of the UN, and alienate the United States in the process. We need a President who will redevelop the good standing we had in the world during the Clinton era.

I can pretty much guarantee you won't see a Bush nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize anytime soon.

You say this:
There is a poison on the left - a rejection of all that is of our civilisation, an embrace of evil.

And on the other hand, you bemoan how people talk right past each other. And I'm sure you don't get my point in showing this because you maintain stubborn blindness to your crystal-clear hypocrisy.

So, as proof of your patently absurd claim, you go with...wait for it...a wholly unsubstantiated red scare:

This is, in my view, because too many non-kook leftists are making common cause with people who are, at bottom, communist in their political orientation (most of them don't self-describe themselves as such, but some do). Communism, like Nazism and fascism, is a pure form of evil - it is horrific and hateful, and no decent human being should have anything to do with it...and yet groups like ANSWER - founded and funded by hard-core communists - are welcomed on your side of the aisle.

You claim over and over again that this mythic "the left" is fueled entirely by hate. So you make up stuff about them to fuel your own hatred because if you can't hate them, why bother, right? Again, there's some parable in some book of myths about the speck in another's eye versus the plank in your own. You might want to look into it sometime.

FYI - Below is a link to a blogger that regularly travels to Iraq. I haven't read all of it but it's really good. You guys would really like it. Hard to believe I found the link on MSNBC.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/

"...but can that mass of the left out there which is calling Iraq a debacle and slavering over the prospect of impeachment be brought 'round to reason?

I have my very strong doubts."

Mark Noonan

"Me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too,me too, me too.................America"

Where were these "sensible" democrats when the far left wing kook fringe were taking over? Why weren't they fighting off Michael Moore, Moveon, and George Soros?

"I am extraordinarily conservative, as any Catholic must be..."

See, more BS.

"REV. RICHARD JOHN NEUHAUS: The struggling with that, what does it mean to respond to the universal call to holiness? What does it mean to walk the way of the cross? And there, thank God, there are a great diversity of ways. You call them apostolates, careisms, whatever, and they don’t fit any left, right, liberal, conservative kind of template at all. I mean, what was Mother Theresa? A conservative, a liberal? It just doesn’t make any sense to, to talk in those terms."

No regrets about what I wrote, Mark.

"Why should you bother with the other side/When you know yours if right?"

You pick out some quote from some obscure Reverand to disprove Marks point? How sad and pathetic is that?

CJ,

Neuhaus is a very prominent Catholic figure who founded First Thing journal, is president of the Institute on Religion and Public Life and the religion editor of the National Review.

That quote was from the Easter Sunday "Meet the Press" roundtable on faith.

mark, are you saying all true Catholics are conservative? If so are you denying President Chavez is a Catholic?

Now that we found some "Sensible Leftwingers", maybe we can find some "Sensible Rightwingers" and come to some common ground towards actually accomplishing something other than name calling and finger pointing.

Tom,

Neuhaus was both right and wrong with that - right in the sense that religious belief transcends political labels, but wrong to imply that a liberal can be a Catholic...its just not possible; a Catholic must stand firmly athwart such modern liberal notions as gay marriage, abortion, easy access to pornography, etc, etc, etc...

Muirgeo,

And that means what? That you've got polls? How about looking into what the manifesto says...or does your courage fail you? Are you afraid to step away from anti-Bush animus?

"Neuhaus was both right and wrong with that - right in the sense that religious belief transcends political labels, but wrong to imply that a liberal can be a Catholic...its just not possible"

Guess what Mark, I'm liberal and I'm a Catholic. Again, you're so eager to paint all liberals as evil, anti-God, anti-religion that you take an absurdist view of reality. One that is un-Christian.

You do not try to engage, you try to marginalize, belittle and eradicate. You try to shove out the door instead of welcome in.

You take the worst examples of "liberal" actions and paint that as what all liberals are like. You take stances of liberals and distort them. You do not take a measured, respectful view of those who oppose you politically. In that respect, you do not love your "enemy." You attack them and misrepresent what they stand for.

Again, I'll leave you with the words of David Gilmore:

"Why do you bother with the other side/When you know yours is right?"

Where in the Bible does it say hatred and oppression are the correct way to deal with unholiness?

You know, for those of us who were trained in the ways of Christianity for the majority of our lives, we all know that God loves ALL people. We are all sinners and none of us is any better than another in the eyes of God.

That said, marriage was instituted by God at the beginning of time when he joined Adam and Eve. The government should have no say over marriage as an institution because it is a violation of separation of church and state. I believe the governement should recognize civil unions and ONLY civil unions, and it should be up to the church, and ONLY the church to recognize marriage. Not allowing people who happen to be different in the eyes of society to function like others in society simply because of their lifestyle amounts to oppression.

I continue as I always have to feel that abortion is murder, and pornography, while it may be a sin, is a part of life. If you don't like it, don't look at it. I do, but I realize I'm a sinner. I have broken all ten commandments thousands of times over and will continue to do so until I die, as will all of you whether you believe it or not. Gay people, atheists, murderers, rapists, liberals, and conservatives are all children of God, and it is time to accept them and love them as God loves them.

Ron,
How's that smoking thing going?

Love the sinner and hate the sin is what Christians profess; where I would draw the line is when the sinner promulgate the sin, then expects me to condone and endorse it. I make no apology for remaining true and consistent to my beliefs. I can find much common ground with the other side of the political debate; but not when they want me to endorse something I oppose to the core of my being.

Barney,

Yeah, this is a British site. Apparently the group was created in response to the tube bombings last summer. And of course, that's what makes this so great.

Mark thinks these people are reacting against the "far left" in America, when really they're reacting against the far left in Britain - note presence/absence of quotes, it's significant.

On another thread, someone asked Ash to "prove" that ABC News is not "far left" as if that's even possible. But that's where we are. Something as obviously partisan as Fox is "fair and balanced," something as bland and banal as ABC is "far left." At least leftists know they're on the left, everyone here thinks they're right in the middle, exactly in line with the "silent majority" in this country that's so unfairly persecuted.

Tom,

So, just how do you square being in favor of murdering unborn children with the Sermon on the Mount? Really, I'd be curious to see how that works out...

Tom,

And, additionally, how do you square your views about me with what I wrote in this very thread?

Here I am, pointing out sensible leftwing thought...and you are saying that I'm misrepresenting same?

There is evil in this world; any Christian believes that...and the evil isn't Wal Mart offering lower prices for consumer goods; nor is it a Republican proposal to lower taxes; nor is it the posting of the Ten Commandments in a public area...it is the terrorists who murder the innocent; the abortionist who muderers children; the pornographer who exploits women; and the apologists for all of these things.

nicole,
I guess you're right, the far left in England has the capacity to be sensible; that's where they diverge with the fare left here.

What is more evil then the marriage of Zionist-neo-con and armageddonist(Christian conservatives)? That unholy alliance was given us by the idiot genius Karl Rove. Peace

steve has yet to indicate how the so-called Party of Peace is related in any way to real peace. Of course, he doesn't identify this party by name, so it could be the smoky one with all the munchies in his mom's basement every Saturday night--the one where they talk about how they could really get dates, if they only wanted to.

The Left has an uninterrupted history of being on the side of the murderous, the torturers, the genocidists. To this day, it is the Left defending Castro, the Black Panthers, Lenin, Stalin, and the retreat from Viet Nam which left millions of our allies to be slaughtered by communists. It is the Left claiming that Iraq would be better off if we had just left Sadaam in charge---along with, I assume, his torture chambers and his rape rooms and his mass graves.

The Right is not always right. Being composed of human beings, any party or movement is going to have its mistakes, its misjudgments, its out-and-out screw-ups. But I look at the principles behind the people, and the failure to alwasy execute a good plan in the best way is a far cry from having a plan based on subjugation, terror, torture, oppression, and government-sponsored murder of all dissidents. When a government encourages freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of economy, freedom of movement, freedom of opportunity, it is by definition superior to one which denies each and every one of those things, and which uses fear and death to impose its will.

And the far left in Britain is no more sensible than they are here---on the contrary, they are loonier and more laughable than nearly anyone we have here. And they don't have any excuse---they have the example of how socialism has screwed up their country, and they have Europe just across the Channel, sinking under the weight of an unmmanageable socialist experiment.

I no longer believe steve is just an ignorant kid mouthing off thinking he is smart. He has to be a plant, kind of an Ali G character trying to be sooo stupid and soooo insane and sooooo goofy that he will get a reaction. But he does have the buzzwords down: Zionist/neo/Christian/Rove. don't kow when I've seen so many talking point words in such a small space before. And then they came out of his brain onto this thread.

However, I thank steve for pointing out the anti-religion, in general, of the loony left. Judeo-Christian religions just don't qualify for tolerance from the party of tolerance, much less peace from the party of peace.

I am a religious anarchist, and you are...? Peace

Bane,

I relapsed on cigs about a week ago. Thanks for asking. I've been stressed out about moving and my landlady being a total c$%&.

I understand your point. Growing up in northern Wisconsin, we did not have any black people, and the gay people stayed in the closet. I come from a very bigoted family where N-bombs flowed freely. I attended Lutheran school for 13 years where liberals basically stayed in the closet too.

Once I got into college and the workforce, I started meeting people from other cultures. I also spent several years in Milwaukee, the gay capital of the midwest. Once you're able to put a human face on your prejudices, it becomes difficult to hate them. One of the coolest guys I've ever known was gay and black. I started to feel his oppression first-hand. I felt bad. At one time, during my severe homophobic stage, I felt that all gay people should be driven off a cliff. Now I wonder why everyone hates them so much, they are people too.

In short, I don't think it's right to be gay, but I can't say definitively what is right or wrong because I'm not God. I feel better about myself when I am more accepting of cultures I don't understand.

Ron,
Two kinds of people; smokers and non-smokers. Decide which one you are and be that. The sooner you try again, the better chance you'll have.

Before I got into accounting I spent 20 years in retail, to say that much of the people I worked with were gay is an understatement. Now I work in academia, many of my contemporaries are gay, transgender and lesbian. Wonderful people every one of them, and as long as we don’t discuss my sex life, and they don’t try to tell me about theirs we get along fine.

What I object to is using our institution of marriage to make them feel “normal.” Society owes itself propagation, and the most conducive and most productive (no pun intended) is a heterosexual family unit. To use our institution doesn’t hellp their cause and only serves to weaken the idea and the institution of marriage, one need only look to Scandinavia to see the out of wedlock birth rates and the breakdown of the family to know this.

I will actively resist any attempt to cheapen marriage, or change the definitions of a family. Here in California there is no right or privilidge that married couples enjoy that a gay couple can’t legally get; just don’t pretend it’s a marriage.

I suggest checking out www.nonesoblind.org, which is a Christian web site that takes both "liberals" and "conservatives" to task for their moral shortcomings. A brief intro:

"Many Americans feel a sense of alarm about the moral condition of American society today.

Many in the liberal half of America worry that the political right has been taken over by amoral forces that only pretend to be righteous while they indulge their lust for power and wealth. Many in the conservative half of America fear that America’s moral integrity has been eroded by an “anything goes” culture abetted by the moral permissiveness of contemporary liberalism.

Both these worries are well founded.

Indeed, the purpose of NoneSoBlind is to provide a coherent picture of the perilous state of American civilization, a vision that shows how these two moral crises — the rise of fascistic forces in the political realm and the degradation of values in the cultural realm–are two sides of the same coin.

Polarized societies must still be understood as wholes, albeit as wholes that are failing to put the pieces together.

Accordingly, as the ideas developed here show, America’s increasing polarization represents a growing failure of both sides of America’s divide to meet the fundamental moral challenge of civilization: to harmonize the needs of human nature with the demands of good order. As a result of this failure, the two halves of America have each developed different –but deeply complementary– moral blind spots. (See Dimension 3 in Book-cubed.)

The moral blindness of the conservatives is that they’ve become unable to tell the difference between the good and the evil. They have been seduced by a leadership that dresses itself in the mere trappings of righteous order (like the flag and the faith).

Many American liberals, on the other hand, have become blind to how vital and how real that difference is. They have failed to recognize the evils that come from not distinguishing between right desire and wrong desire.

Lacking clear moral vision, the conservative half of America has thus unwittingly given their power to evil forces, while the liberal half –imagining it a virtue to tolerate the intolerable and to judge nothing but “judgmentalism”—has helped grease America’s slide into moral decadence. (See Dimension 1 in Book-cubed.)

The conservative half of America gives too much deference to the ruling element in the order/nature dichotomy, while the liberal half gives correspondingly too little.

NoneSoBlind thus show how these two complementary forms of moral blindness have led America downward into a crisis as serious, as any in the nation’s history, one in which the very soul of America is at stake.

The vision developed here not only provides an analysis of the fundamental problem but it offers a solution to it as well.

NoneSoBlind presents blueprint for a “prophetic social movement,” a way of speaking moral truth about these now-ascendant amoral forces that can awaken our conservative countrymen from the trance state into which they have been seduced.

At the same time, this “prophetic” approach will require America’s liberals to re-establish a much deeper connection with the moral and spiritual core of our human reality. For from liberalism’s present moral superficiality and flaccidity, it will not be possible to speak from that place of conviction from which comes that power of prophetic speech.

At its root, then, our present national crisis is a symptom of moral and spiritual deterioration of the American cultural system as a whole. To meet the challenge of this crisis successfully, both sides of our polarized society will have to become –morally and spiritually—more whole."

Comments anyone?

I really enjoyed that post, Cookie.

My morals are what has kept me from being completely liberal. I believe in creation and disagree with them not allowing something like intelligent design to be taught in public schools. Too many people consider evolution to be factual, when in fact it is only a theory, and should be taught as such. Every time they find some stupid fossil that appears to be a fish with legs, they offer it as proof of their theory, when in fact it is probably just another animal that went extinct.

I also believe that conservatives that feed on money and power are only a small minority, namely politicians and company executives. Unfortunately money and power are money and power. Poor people cannot stand up for themselves in the face of money and power. Most of the time I feel that Democrats are the only ones who will stand up for the little guy and many people feel that Republicans are the only ones who will stand up for morality. Too many people in this country are voting for the lesser of 2 evils, which is where I find myself the majority of the time.