Si, si puedes. Viva Ceasar!
 

http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-...navtype=outfit

Farmworkers in Baja California clash with the owners and the policia.

Ceasar Chavez would be proud. :)

Thirteen dollars a day? What cheap bastards!

I see Communism is alive and well in the land of fruits and nuts (Hopefully the San Andreas has a major conniption fit soon).

Conservatives always lust for death and destruction.

Well, I don't think the right has the market cornered on death and destruction - the left has more than held it's own the past few decades.

http://chineseposters.net/images/e15-507.jpg


See also: Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

Let's not forget Roosevelt, Wilson, Kennedy, LBJ.

Around here, it always seems to be conservatives that want people dead.

As far as that goes, I could make the argument that all totalitarian regimes are conservative. The commies are leftists while the revolution's on, sure. But they become complete top-down authoritarians, enforcers of the dogma of the one true faith (orthodox Marxism of some particular variety), and anti-change defenders of the privileges of the elite (the inner party) once the revolution 'succeeds.'

I am looking forward to quoting this in the near future.

Hmmm, what do you think, Cats?

What you nice people don't seem to understand is that communism as practiced by Stalin and Mao is essentially right wing totalitarianism. The only thin "leftist" about it is rhetoric. From an economic perspective, it's more a form of state capitalism than it is soci@lism.

Pol Pot was just a madman who waved a red flag. He had no ideology beyond total domination and destruction.

And Boris, would you care to elaborate on your choices of those four Democratic presidents? How did they demonstrate a "death wish"?

Does that mean you think there's something wrong with it?

Would you care to honestly discuss what that would be, if so?

Or do you just want to pull a cutsie with the phrase "...commies are leftists..." stripped out of the context of discussion?

Nope.

Although not a fan of Wilson or LBJ (both crooks from opposite ends of the intellectual spectrum), I would like to see a Democratic Party more in the vein of FDR's - while I would probably disagree with many of his initiatives, he was a civil man and valued decorum and protocol when debating the issues.

Can it be in the form of a bumper sticker?

I don't think so. Wait and see.

I understand it very well, and have read extensively in an effort to understand the human tendency to follow revolutionary madmen of all ilk, as well as the tendency of popular revolutions to devolve and find it necessary to enforce by mass violence and murder their policies proclaiming to free the people from just such bloody injustice.

And it's not really accurate to describe Wilson as being on the left. He was a half-mad racist jerk. The Democratic Party then wasn't as it was post-FDR and [i]certainly not what it has been since LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Say what you will about Johnson - and, in many respects, you'd be right - but he continued the work that FDR began. The Great Society was the lineal descendant of the New Deal.

This is great! And here I thought Baja California was part of Mexico.


Carl

There is no room for the center in today's political climate. I consider myself conservative, but today that seems to have a definition not at all in line with how I think.

The majority are cajoled to line up on one side or the other for the sake of unity and expediency, ideas be damned.

If you think Stalin was a leftie then that clarifies your posts.:)

Are you serious?

It is Polk forgot to steal that bit.:)

Stalin was a successor (usurper) to the Bolshevik cause - his totalitarian methods for striving to achieve it's (his) stated goals are not isolated events in the history of failed popular revolutions.

Awwww, how cute. :rolleyes:

The center is where most Democratic politicians and few Democratic voters reside..... but we take what we can get.

Stalin was a murdering dictator and if that is left wing then I am the King of Roumania (with apologies to Dorothy Parker),

John I was a paid up member of the Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Party back home. Here I find the GOP somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan.

Murderous tyrannies occur on both sides of the ideological spectrum.

By their fruits shall ye know them. Government of, by and for the hereditary* aristocracy is right wing.


*except to a degree for the first generation, if a 'circulation of elites' occurs

You are a great teacher on this here site.

In the history and commemoration of Civil Rights LBJ gets short shrift.
However LBJ was a stalwart legislator.

:rolleyes: C'mon, ever since Bill Clinton the Dems have been the center right party. That's exactly where Obama has governed from since day one of his presidency.

It's the Repubs who've shifted to the far right end of the spectrum.

I'd say that in terms of the American ideological spectrum, Obama and the Clintons are center-left. The center-right is nearly non-existent, having been euthanized (in primaries mostly) by the GOP and their pandering to the Fox News/Talk Radio/'Bagger faction.

You say tomato and I say tom-ah-to. :cool:

On the ideological spectrum of First World democracies, Obama is definitely center right (or even more conservative than that). He's probably further to the right than the UK Conservatives or the German CDU/CSU, for example.

Absolutely. European Conservatives just don't get our Conservatives at all.

In fact, I don't think there is a First World democracy anywhere in the world to the right of the US (with Singapore being a possible exception, to the extent that a city-state is even relevant to the discussion (or if Singapore is truly democratic)).

Poo-tin made himself a billionaire at the expense of the people that elected him to serve their best interests. He also thinks that the elimination of civil rights is a good thing.
Maybe he is a conservative Republican too. :p


Carl

He's most definitely conservative, even right wing and definitely an oligarch.

But he's also a true and devoted nationalist, a thing we forget at our peril.

Conservatives not in thrall to international capital tend to be nationalists.

Interesting contrast.

Really? What don't you understand about the meaning of "tend to be"?