Noboby here really qualifies as "far left"

[Ken Burch]

"Far Left" means the Sendero Luminoso, or maybe Pol Pot(if you actually believe what the Khmer Rouge did was in any real sense "leftist" at all).

It doesn't apply to people who are simply defending their own liberal, and in some cases democratic radical convictions.

Nobody here is guilty of wanting anyone sent to a labor camp, or of wanting mass executions, or even of favoring suppression of "counterrevolutionary devationist" opinions.

Let the "far left" smear be seen for what it is: a lie

And let it be retired from usage here at DU.

This forum deserves greater rhetorical care than that.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Agreed. I am a Sunday School teacher and cheering coach, not a gun running communist rebel.

:rofl:

[nomorenomore08]

2. Thank you!

Smearing people as "the far left," when the positions they advocate are quite mainstream in most of the Western world, is pretty laughable. Especially when one contrasts them with Maoist/Stalinist loonies past and present.

I also find it silly when people here actually do identify themselves as "far left," for similar reasons, but in that case I can let it slide.

[FrenchieCat]

3. You are correct, they are not the The Far Left, they are the Far Outs!

But I'm getting tired of folks telling me what to retire,
in my lingo.

Why do we have a Word usage police here at DU? :shrug:

What I will say is that thumbing one's nose at 31 million people, most of them minorities,
who die from preventable desease at a higher rate than any other group, and wanting to gut
their chance at having access to health care not when they have to go, but when they need to go,
in order to stand for some principle about the Insurance Industry who isn't going
anywhere fast, because that isn't a reality in the world we live in today,
considering that we have 60 Dems, but many are conservative, is an intellectual exercise,
that fits the Far Out Left to a "T".

They are on these boards, and they are railing against the corporation,
cause that is what they do.

The bill has been wrenched by many compromises. But it imposes on the insurance industry tough rules long sought by liberals, including a ban on the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Once fully phased in, it would spend nearly $200 billion annually to help more than 30 million uninsured Americans obtain coverage.

The new Internet-based left, because it is so heavily reliant on college-educated whites generally less exposed to the economy's storms, also has a blind spot on kitchen table issues. According to the Census Bureau, just 6 percent of college-educated whites lack health insurance, for instance, compared to 19 percent of African-Americans and 31 percent of Hispanics. But the idea that Democrats should just press restart after the grueling struggle to reach this point carries an air of fatal abstraction: If health reform fails now, the next chance for big change probably wouldn't come for years, if not decades. "The universal rule of health care -- there are no exceptions -- is you get what you can," says Brown University political scientist James Morone, co-author of The Heart of Power, a recent history of health care politics.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20091224_5120.php

Anyone who doesn't give a shit about 31 million people
are Far fucking out......and don't stand for shit.

[POAS]

4. You got it Frenchie

To say FU to 31 million people because the bill isn't perfect is indeed "far out".

It is also "far out" to suggest that a reference to the "far left" (or for that matter "far right") implies anything other than the boundaries of current political thought in the USA. If I call someone "far right" I do not mean to align them with Hitler. Inthe same way, if I refer to an argument as being from the "far left" I do not infer anything farther left than, say for example, the positions of Dennis Kucinich.

At one point this bill would have been a great boon to me personally. However, as it reads today, the bill no longer has the provision for a Medicare buy in before age 65 (the current law). That provision would have allowed me to retire this year without fear of a recurrence of my cancer before my 65th birthday at the end of the year.

I could, if I chose say "the hell with the bill, it doesn't help me so kill the bill", but I'm not so cocksure nor self absorbed to be willing to throw those 31 million out because my own needs are not met or because the Bill has flaws. Many here apparently are willing to do just that.

[FrenchieCat]

6. My stepdad and I were discussing this tonight during Christmas dinner.....

he doesn't like to talk politics, but he did anyways.

And he basically stated what you did.....
that he'll get nothing out of this bill most likely,
but he's not interested in the bill passing for his benefit,
but for those who need to be able to go to the doctor without
hesitation. He's pretty comfortable financially, but he certainly understands
that in this country, a true Liberal is someone willing to do something for someone else,
even if it doesn't help him/herself.

That's why folks oftentime say that Jesus would have been a Liberal....
cause it wasn't about him so much, but about those in need.

The Far Outs believe it is about nothing but them "liberating" the rest
of us from the clutches of the evil empire, aka, the United States Government,
and it overlord; the Corporations. Their only problem is that their tactics don't work,
and their arguments are stale, and help no one now, except for the Republicans,
who are a big tent if it means that they can get help tying the hands of this administration.

Guess that is what is meant by the arc of politics;
where the Left and the Right at each ends meet.

[eridani]

9. Dennis Kucinich is a centrist in most of the industrialized world n/t

[POAS]

12. Probably so but

you make my point that if we are having a discussion about what constitutes the far left or the far right (or a centrist for that matter) it is best to define those terms in the context of the political realities of our system since that is really the bounds within which we operate.

In terms of the U.S. political spectrum Dennis is on the "far left" and I make that judgment based on my view from even farther to the left that Dennis. Where I differ from Dennis is not in his goals but in his tactics.

If we want to define ourselves and our politicians based on the examples we see elsewhere in the world then we could easily find examples which could prove that all of us (left and right) are either ALL lefties or all righties but those comparisons would be meaningless and in fact counter-productive.

[eridani]

15. Brilliant. Just let right wing corporatists continue to define right vs left in this country

That will surely bring back a government commitment to actually provide public goods. Not.

[POAS]

16. Where the hell did you get that out of

what I just posted?

I think your knee is a bit jerky!

[eridani]

21. You were pretty well implying that the determination of what is left vs right

--in this country by the well-heeled punditocracy has something to do with reality.

[POAS]

I implied no such thing

and you are grasping at straws.

It makes NO sense to argue whether a position on an issue in our political theater is either a far left or far right position based on the political realities that exist in other countries.

The original post here decries the use of the term "far left" by saying that such a label implies a relationship with the likes of "Pol Pot" when in fact that is not the intent. Such an intent would be meaningless.

The original post is a simplistic and meaningless whine and I fear I have been sucked into giving it far too much time already.

[eridani]

25. Excuse me, but by our own labels and definitions, we CREATE those realities

Both here and in other countries.

[POAS]

28. But attempting to use

labels as they apply to circumstances in other parts of the world are meaningless when we apply those standards to our political realities.

You brought the "well healed punditocracy' into this diatribe, not me, and I will state again that I implied no such thing and you are reading into my post things based on your own prejudices and judgmentalism, please take it elsewhere, I will not subject myself to having my meanings twisted further by you.

[stevenleser]

42. While we are throwing out "Far Left" we should also throw out "corporatists"

It doesnt really mean anything and is a useless pejorative.

[Atticus]

7. So, have we devolved into a group of name-calling keyboard warriors with out heads firmly lodged in

our anal sphincters or do we still permit honest disagreement even with our own?

Sweeping together all who aren't enthusiastic about the current HCR bills as "Far fucking out" people who don't "give a shit about 31 million people" is so simple-mindedly childish and petulant that it defies any attempt to adequately criticize it.

I can see why you are concerned about "word usage police". Your attempt at reasoned discourse was criminal.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I'm learning quickly.....

And since folks seem to be able to say what they want,
I figure I can too. :shrug:

Why shouldn't I? Is there a law that states that just about everyone
else can make generalized broad Blanket statements,
but me?

When I read...."He's controlled by the Corporations" or "Kill the Bill"...
I'm saying that is fucking far out, because that is what I think.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cha]

50. You have nothing so you make personal attacks.

[stevenleser]

44. Picking on Frenchie isnt the answer. There are plenty of examples in this thread of others doing the

same coming from the opposite side of the argument. I.e., someone accusing another poster of essentially being "Pro Corporate" for letting the "corporatists decide" things.

[eridani]

8. So, how does a mandate to purchase crappy underinsurance help any of them? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

11. Because unlike you, many people want to have health insurance

cause that is what one needs to go see a doctor when one wants.

Please describe "crappy" underinsurance,
and quote the bill where it says that is what folks will get.

[POAS]

13. Agree except I would change "want" to need! n/t

[eridani]

14. Given a choice between paying for ongoing medical needs over an insurance premium

--most would pick their immediate needs. "Crappy" is defined as the basic level plan (the only one that will be subsidized) which will pay only 60-70% of actual medical costs until a high deductible is reached. ($5000-$10,000)

I have crappy insurance now, because people like you deem 50-64 year olds disposable human garbage who should be forced to pay three times as much for underinsurance. I can afford it and ongoing expenses right now, but a serious financial emergency could leave be the choice between immediate needs and catastrophic insurance. And what people with financial emergencies need is obviously to be fined by the IRS.

[FrenchieCat]

17. I am between 50-64.......

and you are the one that don't believe that those 31 million should have insurance at all,
unless it is perfect and blessed for approval by you.

Your telling quote, "I can afford it and ongoing expenses right now".

Meanwhile, Sen. Sanders sees it a bit differently from your hyperbole...
calmly he states,

“The bill is not as strong as I wanted and I will work to improve it, but it begins to move this country toward the long-time goal of providing comprehensive, affordable health care for all Americans. The legislation would provide health insurance for 31 million people, end the odious practice of denying care for people with pre-existing conditions, and provide affordable primary care and low-cost prescription drugs for 25 million more Americans in 10,000 more communities. We can do better, but this is an important step forward.”
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=5649DBD3-D1BD-45DA-ABFE-B158CBB87305

[eridani]

22. No, the 31 million do not need insurance at all. They need HEALTH CARE n/t

[FrenchieCat]

23. And they can't get it without health insurance.....

But you know that, since you have health insurance.

How does it feel to deny to others what you yourself have?

[eridani]

26. They could if we made an actual law that required it

People inn the Netherlands don't get a bunch of shit about denial of care, and they have mandated private insurance. It costs them 100 Euros/month, and covers EVERYTHING--no deductibles, no co-pays and no age rating.

This bill would not save people like Nataline Sarkisian--it would only make her parents poorer before their claim was denied.

[FrenchieCat]

29. What you would rather do is go round and round we go, were does that take us?

Nowhere.

You keep pointing to the problems,
with no real ability to get to your articulated solution.
In fact, the solution has been articulated many times,
but it appears that getting to solving it will have to be
handled differently than how you envision it.

Sen. Sanders sums up the doable start of a solution nicely....

“The bill is not as strong as I wanted and I will work to improve it, but it begins to move this country toward the long-time goal of providing comprehensive, affordable health care for all Americans. The legislation would provide health insurance for 31 million people, end the odious practice of denying care for people with pre-existing conditions, and provide affordable primary care and low-cost prescription drugs for 25 million more Americans in 10,000 more communities. We can do better, but this is an important step forward.”

[eridani]

32. My solution is to leave the fucking mandates OUT of it

Pass the parts containing funding for clinics and more primary care physicians and other sweeteners by themselves. Then revisit Medicaid and Medicare and expand those programs. Sure I'd like either single payer or actual regulation of insurance companies (there is nothing at all in the Senate bill that can't be easily evaded by them), but I'd settle for avoiding the actual harm of making people criminals for not paying ransom to parasites who pay their employees to deny claims.

[stevenleser]

45. But you would be happy if those mandates were instead in the form of taxes and we had single payer

right? Because like any other universal system, getting as many people into it is what helps drive down the price. You are completely OK with forcing many who would not want such a system to pay the taxes to support it. Quite frankly, I would be OK with it too, but it strikes me as hypocritical to rant against it in the one case and defend it in the other. Sure, I know what you are going to come back with. Its paying the govt vs the "corporatists" you like to rail against. But it is still forcing people to do what they do not want to do. Thus the whole mandates thing is a red herring when you say it.

[eridani]

47. Paying taxes for public goods is the absolute antithesis--

--of forcing people to deal with useless shitstains who pay their employees bonuses for denying claims. The government has the right of taxation. Where does it get the right to force people into contracts with private entities?

[stevenleser]

46. That is such a meaningless meme to repeat

People dont need money, they need food...
People dont need money, they need shelter...
People dont need money, they need clothing

We can keep going...
People don't need money, they need transportation
People dont need a job, they need money
People dont need an airplane or airline ticket, they need to get where they are going

etc.,etc.,etc.

[treestar]

55. Thank you!

Man, that one is getting tiresome. So meaningless.

[POAS]

18. I am also in that age range but unlike you

I want to see this bill succeed and then to see it improved because I understand it helps others while at the same time acknowledging that it has many shortcomings and that we need to keep working towards better solutions.

Personally I am not going to be helped by this bill, in fact the removal of the medicare buy-in proposal directly and negatively effects me but I also see some value to others in this bill and therefore hope it passes and is then improved upon in later legislation.

[eridani]

20. I don't see any reason at all why money for clinics and getting more primary care doctors

--needs to be tied to mandatory UNDERINSURANCE. There is no justification for that in any way shape or form.

[POAS]

27. I think I can get your point

without THE NEED FOR CAPS.

Perhaps you missed the point about mandatory subsidized insurance.

The point remains, you are (if I get your drift) against passage of the HCR and are for the status quo because the HCR bill contains provisions you don't agree with. If that is your position you are welcome to it and I will continue to disagree.

[eridani]

48. I am for passing a different bill without mandatory private insurance n/t

[cali]

35. how do you know that the only one subsidized will be the basic level plan?

I have good insurance now; good, private subsidized administered by the state insurance that I pay $60 a month for that covers medical, dental and prescriptions, has a small co-pay and a reasonable deducible.

[eridani]

62. Because that's what the bill says

And don't assume that state plans better than the current federal piece of shit will be allowed to stand.

[BlooInBloo]

43. The 70s called....

They want the word "lingo" back.

:P

[Kaleva]

5. Depends on the reference.

Cindy Sheehan is too far left to be a member of DU but she'd be considered to be a moderate compared to the likes of Pol Pot.

[cyclezealot]

19. Small American minds probably equate left with Pol Pot

But, that is uneducated.. Pol Pot was a tyrant.. Undemocratic.. Never met a leftist who does not fight to enhance democracy.. Socialism might be thought of as leftist. But, Pol Pot is not Socialist. Some forms of Communism favor non democratic systems.. But, non even all Communists are anti democratic. Just most..
. Americans really need better study their history.. They use phrases as expletives without knowing what they mean..

[POAS]

24. Your right and I'd add

that some stretch a point into meaninglessness. The attempt to conflate the "far left" label as used in today's American politics with Pol Pot is a good example. Lack of knowledge and a lack of critical thinking combined.

[cyclezealot]

30. And o f course to the wingnuts, all Libs' enjoy child pornography..

Hollywood of course the sole promoter of all forms of pornography..

[POAS]

31. It's in the "Liberal Manifesto" right after

the part about eating babies and death panels for the elderly.

[Ken Burch]

33. Speaking of which, have you tried the tasty recipes

in the "Naked Toddler/Dead Grandma Low Fat Cajun Cookbook"? Mmmmmm......



:sarcasm:

[wyldwolf]

34. Within the spectrum of American politics, some here certainly do

[jefferson_dem]

36. +1.

How is this even debatable?

[Posteritatis]

37. The terms "left" and "right" wander around to suit most people who throw them about

Anyone talking like there's some universal worldwide checklist-based standards (and those always seem to slot neatly into the American political spectrum) for such things is an idiot.

There's a lot of idiots these days.

[Kaleva]

51. +1

[Odin2005]

58. WYLDWOLF!!! We missed you!!!

Were the hell have YOU been!?! :hi: :hug:

[wyldwolf]

61. here and there

I lurk and almost reply but then realize I'm too busy with work, being a daddy, and doing local stuff to get into long marathon debates on DU. But I did have a week-long barn burner going on another message forum with a libertarian.

[DisgustedInMN]

38. Agreed, ...

... and thanks to the DINO corporate enablers, come the midterms...

It's gonna get ugly.

WTG Obama...

Screwed the pooch already.

What a fucking waste.

[Liberation Angel]

39. Far left does NOT mean fascists, totalitarians and terrorists

But it can include pacifists, progressive activists and people who would define themselves as progressives.

I describe the far left as committed antifascists. NOT fascists or totalitarians or those who commit violence against innocents.

I disagree therefore with your analysis.

Far left is not necessarily a smear. I call myself far left but am a pacifist and do not subscribe to fascist ideologies.

I think many here are far left without being violent or oppressive.

I just think you're perspective is off.

The far left can be a good thing, a good policy position, and nonviolent or oppressive.

I think you have adopted the definition of the far right regarding the far left.

And that definition is dead wrong and false.

But it is a subjective label and means what you believe it means. To me it means those willing to die or suffer as in satyagrahists for peace and justice.

It does not mean the violent "leftists" who are just closer to the right than to the true left, which is propeace and compassion.

[inna]

52. +1

thanks for this!

[vaberella]

65. See, I thought that was extreme--far right...while Anarchists were extreme left.n/t

[Forkboy]

41. People who think there are need to come hang out with me. I have some people I'd like them to meet.

They'll come back here begging to talk to a DK supporter. :)

[CreekDog]

49. Rhetorical care?

:rofl:

are you sure you're in the right place? :rofl:

[treestar]

53. There is no one like that now in the US

"far left" in US terms would include people who want all corporations and insurance companies dismantled immediately. That seems to describe some posters, who believe in no change that does not decimate "Wall Street."

They don't say what they do want but apparently it is a government run economy with no large companies.

That's far left in 2009 U.S.

[hippywife]

59. Not entirely accurate.

I would offer that the majority of non-corporatists would rather just see the abolition of the notion of personhood for the corporations with regard to the Bill of Rights and their noses out of every ass crack in the halls of government power.

[phleshdef]

54. Depends on how you look at it. I view "left" and "right" as relative and subjective to the society.

[nonsequitur]

56. I'm left of a Blue dog but not considered far left. Far right, far left...

far out

[Odin2005]

57. Simple dichotomies in politics are BS.

As a Left-Libertarian I would be called "Far-Left" by most Americans, and yet I dislike the Communists almost as much as I dislike Fascists, and the Communists would bash me as a "bourgeois utopian"

[roody]

60. Far left here! Far left means non-violence.

A very far-out philosophy!

[LostInAnomie]

63. That's a pretty silly view of the "Far Left".

Even the farthest of the far left don't advocate totalitarianism. You are confusing tactics and people for ideas and philosophies.

[vaberella]

64. I thought far left---extreme was Anarchists?! nt