Wilbur wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:Oh, RT. The sane choice

What's your problem with Hartman and Papantonio? Do you even know who they are?

The problem with Papantonio on RT is the same as if you'd cited Ann Coulter on Breibart or Fox News. Sources such as these are going to lay the blame for every problem there is at the doorstep of those that do not completely agree with them. They're also going to claim that centrists are really on the other side. Just listen to Papantonio in your video starting at 2:35 say, "they're all Republicans". I mean listen to people like Papantonio and Bill and Hillary Clinton and now Obama are closeted Republicans doing Republican bidding and if you listen to Papatnonio's co-conspirators on the other side Hillary Clinton is a liberal demon only out to destroy "America" and its "Judeo Christian" foundation.

It's one thing to listen to all sides of an argument to gain an understanding of their positions and opinions, but it's quite another to take on board and then promote the partisan nonsense that either fringe group is propounding.

So yeah, using someone like Papantonio on RT in an attempt to support or justify a truly radical view is a mistake. His is of the view that you are being asked to support. Consequently the views and diatribes of people like Papantonio do not equal any kind of support for your uninformed assertions.

thaesofereode wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:What's he going to do next, challenge her to a game of darts for the whole kitten caboodle?

No disrespect intended, but that would be "kit and caboodle."
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/whole- ... oodle--the

So it is Thanks for pointing it out!

I quite like "kitten caboodle".

laklak wrote:I quite like "kitten caboodle".

Kinda amazed I've only ever heard it said and never seen it written before, usually with a southern accent so it tends to run together

I didn't want to embarrass you by correcting it.

Also, thought it was kyoot.

Gosh, I'm embarrassed that I give the impression of someone who'd be embarrassed at being corrected

Hell I say it kitten caboddle in my southern accent soooo no worries m8

Wilbur wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Well, as much as I disagree with the thought that a good deal is when everyone is dissatisfied, your idea of radical moderates makes me laugh.

It's not my idea, radical centrism or third way is a well known ideology.

"Third Way is this group that pretends sometimes to be center-left but is actually completely a creation of Wall Street—it's run by Wall Street for Wall Street with this false flag operation as if it were a center-left group. It's nothing of the sort." - William Black

It's not worth discussing this here. While third way is a very real thing, with defined policy positions, some will refuse to acknowledge what it is, or that the Clintons are third way.

BTW, Hartman and Papantonio are two of the most informed pundits I know of. In the joke that is the modern media, someone with a principled and well informed commentary is a breath of fresh air. To claim they are the same as Coulter is the same as claiming Clinton is as bad as trump.

SafeAsMilk wrote:Gosh, I'm embarrassed that I give the impression of someone who'd be embarrassed at being corrected

Some people are very sensitive!

You do realize political studies and political theory is not rigid right? You do realize just because a group of people come together and say something is true or factual in the political spectrum doesn't make it universally accepted among the general political consensus. It doesn't make it wrong, but trying to act like it's a waste of time talking about it on the forum is disingenuous.

Just because people don't automatically go, "Yup totally agree with your position." Does not mean they are not worth discussing with.

Willie71 wrote:
It's not worth discussing this here.

I mostly just want to see what they'll say next. Louis Theroux should do a weird weekend on this crowd.

willhud9 wrote:You do realize political studies and political theory is not rigid right? You do realize just because a group of people come together and say something is true or factual in the political spectrum doesn't make it universally accepted among the general political consensus.

It's not controversial, radical centrism is a thing and everybody acknowledges that. It's radical because it has drastically altered long standing institutions and it's centrist because it combines ideas from the left and right to produce the fucked up public private crony capitalist nightmare we're all currently living these days.

Wilbur wrote:

willhud9 wrote:You do realize political studies and political theory is not rigid right? You do realize just because a group of people come together and say something is true or factual in the political spectrum doesn't make it universally accepted among the general political consensus.

It's not controversial, radical centrism is a thing and everybody acknowledges that.

And no one is denying that it is a political philosophy. The disagreement comes with what you are arbitrarily defining into that political philosophy. Just look on the wikipedia page for radical centrism. On the top right corner it has a box called: Part of a series on LIBERALISM and then a huge list of variants. Now among all those variants I can be damn sure I can find general adjectives that I can also use to describe Clinton and the Democratic party. Your interpretation and views of fitting Clinton into the niche you want her in is not universally accepted. On that there is disagreement. Clinton and the Democratic Party are not a Radical Centrist party. The Democratic Party is a centre-left political party. They have some conservative factions sure, but remember political parties in the US are huge, encompassing systems. In many regards you can find Republicans who are Democrats, but identify as Republicans.

I myself am a very liberal, progressive individual, but recognize the faults of left-wing liberalism and progressivism and lean more towards the centre of the spectrum overall and I am a registered Republican and I will not change that.

It's radical because it has drastically altered long standing institutions and it's centrist because it combines ideas from the left and right to produce the fucked up public private crony capitalist nightmare we're all currently living these days.

And this just goes to show that you don't even know what radical centrism is.

If you think crony capitalism is because of a centrist position than I honestly don't know how to address that because its not.

willhud9 wrote:

It's radical because it has drastically altered long standing institutions and it's centrist because it combines ideas from the left and right to produce the fucked up public private crony capitalist nightmare we're all currently living these days.

And this just goes to show that you don't even know what radical centrism is.

If you think crony capitalism is because of a centrist position than I honestly don't know how to address that because its not.

It's not all about market solutions, privatization, deregulation, corporatist free trade deals etc. I'm just "making it all up out of thin air"? Whatever, guy.

Wilbur wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

It's radical because it has drastically altered long standing institutions and it's centrist because it combines ideas from the left and right to produce the fucked up public private crony capitalist nightmare we're all currently living these days.

And this just goes to show that you don't even know what radical centrism is.

If you think crony capitalism is because of a centrist position than I honestly don't know how to address that because its not.

It's not all about market solutions, privatization, deregulation, corporatist free trade deals etc. I'm just "making it all up out of thin air"? Whatever, guy.

And the vast majority of that is in the form of right wing capitalistic enterprise.

But capitalism itself is not a problem. A regulated market is a good thing, but so is free-enterprise. The regulated market is used to protect the people from exploitation and to make labour conditions favor the employees without cutting majorly into the business owners profit.

Hence why virtually all modern economies in the Western world are a centre based mixed economy.

But sure, whatever guy.

SafeAsMilk wrote:
That you get your information from RT.

You reject information from RT like on principle or something? That's odd.

willhud9 wrote:
And the vast majority of that is in the form of right wing capitalistic enterprise.

The vast majority of that is in the form of Obama administration policy.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:Gosh, I'm embarrassed that I give the impression of someone who'd be embarrassed at being corrected

Some people are very sensitive!

Well, it's a doggy dog world, so suck it up bud or cup.

You're so good at dad jokes.