Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being an apologist for communist dictatorships is a siren song that has lured many a leftist or liberal living in advanced, democratic societies. I don't know why people still fall for it. I can understand Walter Duranty being naive in the 1930s, but when someone like Martin Jacques becomes a China cheerleader during the 2010s, well that's on him.
Being an apologist for communist dictatorships is a siren song that has lured many a leftist or liberal living in advanced, democratic societies. I don't know why people still fall for it. I can understand Walter Duranty being naive in the 1930s, but when someone like Martin Jacques becomes a China cheerleader during the 2010s, well that's on him.
I do: It is -- and has always been -- about control. There is no 'nuance' here. It is about control. It is not about 'social justice' or 'wealth inequality'. Those and other issues are vehicles to carry the ultimate goal: control.
The issue is children. Conservatives want certain books out of reach of children. The list can be debated, but there is no debating that certain sexual issues should be restricted from children. If a Democrat want to raise their children with early sexual education, do it in the privacy of their own homes.
Fine. But explain why the promotion of marijuana in smoking form?
But the bottom line is this...
Population control -- Left.
No guns -- Left.
No cars -- Left.
No wealth -- Left.
Big government -- Left.
No borders -- Left.
The list goes on. What are the odds that Heather Kaye, the woman in the Guardian article who misses how the Chinese government controlled her family life, would be a Republican in the US? So far, no one answered, or more importantly, no one of the Liberal side of this forum answered. Why not?
As a refugee from communism, for the past 48 yrs of living in the US, I recognized the patterns of Marxist leaning trend of the American Intellectual Left, the American Political Left enabled institutional methods, then the American Activist Left intimidate the populace into submission.
So every book in a city library has to be appropriate for children? That's ludicrous. And I don't think it's about the children anyway. A town library in Michigan had parents screaming to ban a book written by a transgender man. So the library put it behind the counter, where it had to be asked for, and checked out with adults with i.d. But that wasn't enough. Because the real goal is to tell people how they can live their lives and what they can read and what they can see and hear. It is very much in the Chinese government playbook! It's early fascism disguised as "it's for the children!"
I don't think the right is small government anymore, by any stretch. They are expanding into people's very lives. As evidenced by the book bannings, etc.
I think your list above is bogus, btw. I'm really not Left in any case. Certainly not Right, either though.
I don't know what you mean by promotion of marijuana in smoking form? You mean selling it dried? First, I don't see anyone "promoting" pot in any way, let alone any particular form. Second, just because you buy dried herb doesn't mean you have to smoke it. I have a machine that heats it up and you attach a bag to it, it fills up the bag with vapor and you inhale the vapor from the bag. It's very popular (brand is Volcano) and you often see people using it even in medical settings on segments about medical marijuana.
Second, a lot of people like it better in that form. I personally don't like edibles. It's harder to control how high you get, and I find it a "sleepy" high vs smoking, which makes me feel active. Plus the high from edibles lasts too long, and afterward I feel tired and lazy. What is your issue with it being sold in whatever form customers want?
Am not asking about the US as a country. Am asking about the individuals.
Between a person from somewhere sort of 'Red' like, let us say Utah, and a person from somewhere sort of 'Blue' like, let us say Oregon, which person is MORE LIKELY, not assuredly, to be favorable to the level of governmental intrusions into personal lives the way the Chinese government does?
...
I read this post fully, and I disagree. You said you are speaking to the individuals, but then fall back upon an argument of gross generalities about the Reds and the Blues, conservatives and liberals, Right and Left, and what I said still stands.
This individual has no desire to have leadership like CPC. I consider myself a centrist, though until all the shenanigans of gender politics I thought of myself as liberal.
I abhor the conservative right thinking they have a right to make decisions about individuals' choices. I don't think my "kind" is insignificant in numbers ALL ALONG the political spectrum.
If anything, I think the biggest problem with politics these days is too many people attempting to categorize individuals and make "informed" decisions, when nothing of the sort is ever going to work here -- because we were all raised to BE individuals.
Being an apologist for communist dictatorships is a siren song that has lured many a leftist or liberal living in advanced, democratic societies. I don't know why people still fall for it. I can understand Walter Duranty being naive in the 1930s, but when someone like Martin Jacques becomes a China cheerleader during the 2010s, well that's on him.
Martin Jacques is a British author. I'd never heard of him until this moment. Can you maybe give us an example of an American politician, or someone who matters in any way, being an apologist for the Chinese communist dictatorship today?
The issue is children. Conservatives want certain books out of reach of children. The list can be debated, but there is no debating that certain sexual issues should be restricted from children. If a Democrat want to raise their children with early sexual education, do it in the privacy of their own homes.
Fine. But explain why the promotion of marijuana in smoking form?
But the bottom line is this...
Population control -- Left.
No guns -- Left.
No cars -- Left.
No wealth -- Left.
Big government -- Left.
No borders -- Left.
.
Population control -- I don't know of any politician, Democrat or Republican, calling for population control. Certain conservatives on this forum have argued against immigration by saying the the US is over-crowded already. I suppose that's a sort of population control.
No guns -- I don't know of any Democratic politicians calling for no guns. Restrictions on certain types of guns maybe. And efforts to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals and mentally ill, yes.
No cars -- First I heard of anyone calling for no cars
No wealth -- First I heard of anyone calling for no wealth
Big government -- Left and right alike want big government, just in different ways
No borders -- I don't know of any Democratic politicians calling for no borders. The idea is ludicrous.
Many aspects of CCP rule fits perfectly with American conservatives. Law and order and tough on crime. Zero tolerance to any illegal drug use. Censorship of hollywood movies that contain sexual content.
Point is both sides can cheery pick facts that make either the American left or right in line with the CCP. China is not the USA and does not mirror exactly the left or right on this country.
You and others comparing republicans and democrats to the CCP are missing the larger point. It’s less about the moral issues and more about how the government operates and views the people. In a Democratic Republic like the US, the people are in charge. The government is formed for and by the people. Government workers literally according to our constitution work for the voters. In the CCP or any other communist regime, the people work for the government. The CCP comes first above the rights and needs of the people. The population is expendable if it meets the needs of the party.
This stark contrast in the relationship between the government and its people has large impacts on the freedoms its citizens enjoy and government operations. It is this difference, not moral issues on which the left is more inline with the communists than the right. The left wants to control people’s lives more so than the right does. It’s no coincidence that the communist party in the US has ties with democrats. A number of democrats consider themselves to be Marxist style socialists. It’s about power and control not moral issues.
So every book in a city library has to be appropriate for children? That's ludicrous. And I don't think it's about the children anyway. A town library in Michigan had parents screaming to ban a book written by a transgender man. So the library put it behind the counter, where it had to be asked for, and checked out with adults with i.d. But that wasn't enough. Because the real goal is to tell people how they can live their lives and what they can read and what they can see and hear. It is very much in the Chinese government playbook! It's early fascism disguised as "it's for the children!"
Let us compare the controversial 'Gender ()_ueer' and '1984'.
Which create a more emotional impact, Gender ()_ueer's illustration of an adult man and a young boy seemingly engaged in oral sex, or 1984's ideological/political exploration into totalitarianism?
I am not a parent, and yet, I can understand why any parent would focus first on the former and less on the latter. When you start 'touching' on children, even allegorically, people will go to the extreme to protect their children from what they perceives, rightly or wrongly, to be a threat. The initial response on 1984 should have been a lesson. Partly about controversial subjects and partly about the target audience. Gender ()_ueer has a more targeted audience. 1984 has a broader audience. I also understand that in order to have controversial subjects be adequately explored, authors must be not only intellectually and emotionally provocative but disseminate their works as wide as possible, and be readied to take the consequences.
I am NOT for banning books but I will not blame parents for reacting the ways they are. A restricted section is a reasonable compromise once emotions calmed but we have to allow parents to vent, so to speak, their concerns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
I don't think the right is small government anymore, by any stretch.
Then all you have to do is speculate what are the odds that Heather Kaye, the woman in the Guardian article who wishes the US is more like China, is a Republican.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
I don't know what you mean by promotion of marijuana in smoking form?
Am talking about why does the Left have a much more benign view about marijuana in any form including smoking but demonizes tobacco. What is the SCIENTIFIC basis for this inconsistency?
Tobacco causes cancer. Bad. Hallucinogens that essentially ruins your body in different ways. Good. The Left turned their noses on the odor of a Cuban cigar, but tolerate the drug induced zombies that p|ss and sh|t in the streets.
Tolerance is not promotion. But you have to be consistent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
