Keskustelujen arkisto

Quote from user: Coolwater[Religion] is really something that seemed to be completely absent in [Barks'] thinking and his whole life. Thomas Andrae, in his monography on Barks, simply calls him an "atheist".
Quite possible.

Quote from user: CoolwaterIn Europe the stereotype is rather that a right-wing, conservative, Republican American is per se strongly religious.
Yes, this stereotype lives in the U.S., as well. It is a generalization. However, I will say that as with most generalizations there is some truth there. If I was a betting man (and I'm not) and you had a group of 100 conservatives and a group of 100 liberals, I would wager that there would be more religious folks in the conservative group. "Just the facts, m'am."

Quote from user: Baar Baar JinxQuote from user: CoolwaterSpeaking of Barks' general conservatism in social, cultural and economic things on the one side and religion on the other side it is perhaps worth mentioning that religion is something that didn't seem to play even a minor role for Barks. In his letters as well as in all the secondary literature on him I never realised anything such as religious beliefs the man would have held, and he also did not base his ideas on politics and culture on that. It is really something that seemed to be completely absent in his thinking and his whole life. Thomas Andrae, in his monography on Barks, simply calls him an "atheist".

In Europe the stereotype is rather that a right-wing, conservative, Republican American is per se strongly religious.
If Barks tended to be more conservative in economic matters, and more liberal in social/religious matters (bordering on atheism as pointed out above) would he be better defined today as a libertarian?
That sounds like a pretty good description to me.

Quote from user: MustangRockstarI happen to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal and I'm certainly no libertarian.
What would be the correct political label for this platform?

Quote from user: GeoXSome years ago, it could mean that you were a liberal Republican, but nowadays there's no such creature.
A liberal libertarian, then? If such a thing ever existed?

Quote from user: Baar Baar JinxQuote from user: GeoXSome years ago, it could mean that you were a liberal Republican, but nowadays there's no such creature.
A liberal libertarian, then? If such a thing ever existed?
We seem to keep using libertarian as a catch all when we can't figure out if something aligns with the democratic or republican platforms. I think we're misunderstanding what a libertarian approach really is.

Quote from user: Robb_KQuote from user: Baar Baar JinxQuote from user: MustangRockstarI happen to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal and I'm certainly no libertarian.
What would be the correct political label for this platform?
non-affiliated
Not necessarily. Probably depends on your priorities. I am a very fiscal conservative but not so on certain social issues. I believe is a strong military and a smaller, less obtrusive government and I believe you are entitled to keep what you earn, no matter how much. But I am not at all religious (although I don't disrespect or frown upon religion or religious individuals as do so many liberals). And I believe in sexual freedom (oh yeah!) as well as gay rights (I'm not gay). These typically liberal ideals are less important to me than my conservative ones. So, I am a staunch and registered Republican and will vote as such on most issues.

Quote from user: Mr. MHere is a fun little bit of trivia:
Don Rosa on other hand is not a republican as he stated in one post on Disney Mailing List (commenting why he didn't wanted to make Scrooge too greedy and Jose Carioca a scam artist like in some stories he was) :
Quote:To me, greed and selfishness is the root of all evil and the Republican party.
(http://nafsk.se/pipermail/dcml/2001-June/010336.html)

Just in case somebody wonder what's the deal in Don Rosas case ;)
Yes, I knew of Don Rosa's political standing. He's one of my fave Scrooge artists/writers, but his rant that Republicans are 'greedy, selfish and evil' is a nasty, vacuous statement, devoid of any intelligence. It just shows him as one angry and frustrated individual??as he sometimes comes across in his postings in this and in the DCML forum awhile back.

Quote from user: GeoXI'm not gonna lie: hearing that about Rosa makes me extremely happy. Thanks!
Indeed :D I'm a "selfish, greedy" Republican who, by definition, is "at the root of all evil." 'Pleased to meet you, won't you guess my name?'

Quote from user: GeoXQuote from user: MorequackHe's one of my fave Scrooge artists/writers, but his rant that Republicans are 'greedy, selfish and evil' is a nasty, vacuous statement, devoid of any intelligence.
Aw. How special. Since you're so deeply concerned with civility, and would never stoop to making statements that are nasty, vacuous, and devoid of any intelligence, I suppose it must've been some other Morequack who called progressivism a "mental disease" and equated me with Nazis for saying I wouldn't want my notional kids to watch Song of the South.
Why should your children be deprived of seeing such nice art, and also learning about their country (be its attributes shameful or not)? Could you not explain to them before viewing, the context of the time in which that film was made. Or are they too young to be able to understand your explanation?

I would not want to deny my children insight into history, and the chance to see artists' beautiful work.

I abhor the racism in The United States. There were beaches, and other places I could not go in Indiana, when I was a child, simply because of my religion. The way the people with dark skin were (and still are) treated by a large number of people in USA) is appalling. It is a lot better than it was in the 1950s, but it is still a very racist country in my view. Yet, I do not have a problem with stereotypical portrayals in art being seen by everyone, not only to understand the history of that country, but also to view the art (films, TV shows, comic books, etc.).