Danusha Goska: Why I am no longer a leftist (1 Viewer)

[Native]

FYI the 2 minute 24 second youtube clip of Milton Friedman on Donahue that she cites in the article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

 

[MaxThreshold]

FYI the 2 minute 24 second youtube clip of Milton Friedman on Donahue that she cites in the article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Fantastic clip.

 

[BRONG]

It sounds like she was a jim11 surrounded by jon_mxs and then realized that all her friends were arctic edges. only thing she has in common with most liberals I know is that she's unnecessarily wordy.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

FYI the 2 minute 24 second youtube clip of Milton Friedman on Donahue that she cites in the article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Rather simplistic but search on youtube for John Stossel's "Greed" (the one from the 90s). I think it is broken up into 6 parts.

 

[Green and Gold]

I read this a couple weeks ago when it was originally posted. Its always interesting to see why a liberal would "convert" so to speak.

to me, in the here and now, the modern liberal has some real contradictions to overcome that aren't being well thought out or discussed, because IMO they cause to much mental incongruence

for example:

the desire to help the poor and downtrodden Americans vs the desire to have wide open southern border which undercuts wages & jobs for those same poor.

the sensitivity to all things considered sexist or paternalistic in this country vs the ignoring of heinous crimes against women in Islamic world.

the classic ideal of "liberal" values of free speech, expression, truth to power vs the modern liberal desire to squelch free speech on the internet, in the news, on campus. This is especially obvious in the news today, where major old school networks refuse to report certain stories that are deemed harmful to Democrats, and where DOJ and the White House has colluded with media to frame stories.

This is the kind of thing I find weird, but it seems to be true of both parties. Why in the world does someone who identifies as a conservative, or liberal, need to agree with every stance their party takes? There are plenty of contradictions on both sides. You can either attempt the mental gymnastics necessary to mold each and every hot-button item on your party's agenda into a strange, convoluted world view that members of opposing parties find laughably ridiculous (and yet can't see it in themselves), or you can independently make a decision on each topic and then align yourself with whichever group makes you most comfortable and/or agrees with the issues closest to your heart.

I dunno, I find most people in real life fall into the latter category, both conservative and liberal. It's only online that I see the former.

 

[cstu]

Why in the world does someone who identifies as a conservative, or liberal, need to agree with every stance their party takes?

The stances parties take are as much, if not more so, about demographic positioning than about core beliefs.

 

[Green and Gold]

Why in the world does someone who identifies as a conservative, or liberal, need to agree with every stance their party takes?

The stances parties take are as much, if not more so, about demographic positioning than about core beliefs.

Agreed, but it still doesn't make much sense for an individual person to agree with every position of one party or the other.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

If you want to know more, just read her 37 pages of movie reviews on IMDB. I think she may have too much time on her hands.

http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2366009/comments?order=date&start=0

"Argyle" is a funny, silly, spy spoof.

7/10 https://www.imdb.com/review/rw9604844/

 

[lakerstan]

If you want to know more, just read her 37 pages of movie reviews on IMDB. I think she may have too much time on her hands.

http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2366009/comments?order=date&start=0

"Argyle" is a funny, silly, spy spoof.

7/10 https://www.imdb.com/review/rw9604844/

Oppenheimer 2/10

“Oppenheimer" is a pretentious film that tries too hard and leads with technique. For this viewer, the film's thudding emphasis on film-making technique, and its rejection of conventional storytelling, was alienating. I noticed how incredibly loud the movie is. It was like being at a rock concert. Some scenes are shot in black and white. Some scenes are shot in color. Each scene is very brief. Who characters are is entirely unclear. Narrative is broken up into bits, juggled, and disjointed. Scenes take place out of time sequence. The film covers Oppenheimer's life from when he was a grad student to his old age. I had no idea why Nolan played the film out of time sequence.”

 

[culdeus]

Why in the world does someone who identifies as a conservative, or liberal, need to agree with every stance their party takes?

The stances parties take are as much, if not more so, about demographic positioning than about core beliefs.

Blast from past right here