But only white male babies, because anything else would be politically incorrect.Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
Besides which, he forgot to mention that we like to eat babies.
Printable View
But only white male babies, because anything else would be politically incorrect.Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
Besides which, he forgot to mention that we like to eat babies.
Kharum, I sincerely wish things like the above were more commonplace in the Liberal Intelligentsia of the United States.Quote:
Originally posted by Kharum
So, let's see...
- I am a staunch defender of the Constitution because I hate the United States.
- I am an advocate of civil liberties and of protecting the people from unreasonable intrusions by the state into their private lives because I hate the United States.
- I believe that the founding fathers demonstrated incredible wisdom in designing a democratic system that not only reflected the will of the majority but that took steps to protect the minority as well because I hate the United States.
- I support a woman's right to choose, the right of all to decide when and how they die, and the right of my daughter not to be subjected to demonstrations of religious piety in the classroom because I hate the United States.
- I believe that Americans should consider it a duty to remain politically involved and informed and to be vigilant and critical towards every action of their government because I hate the United States.
- I served in the United States Army because I hate the United States.
Instead it is nothing more than income redistribution through taxation and vote buying through welfare slavery.
A perfect example is social security private accounts. Nobody, absolutely nobody, should be against this. It makes no sense not to let people have some actual control over a portion of the money they pay in as well as actually guaranteeing that this portion is THEIRS and cannot be diverted to any government program some politician (either party) dreams up.
The type of investments allowed WORK. The fact that every single politician uses the same type of retirement fund is excellent proof. To say investing in indexed funds is "risky" is to say investing in the United States is "risky." Over the long term, it just isn't risky.
So why do American Liberals as a group fight this? Simple. Social Security is one of their vote buying cash cows.
Your favorable view appears to be what Liberalism SHOULD be, and what I wish it WOULD be. I have no idea what could be done to move things more towards your idealised vision and away from its current state.
The democrats are utterly ineffective, and have no consistent ideology or agenda, really. One can acknowledge this, and even despise the democratic party, yet still be a liberal. I think part of my disinclination to respond to Zimri's post is that it mixes Democratic idiocy (more on that in the next paragraph), nonsensical stereotypes of liberals, and obvious nontruths (such as liberals hate America).
This thread seems to assume liberals and Democrats are interchangeable groups, when this is not at all the case. Quite frankly, in order for liberalism to be advanced, either the Democratic Party needs to be drastically changed, or another party needs to come forward that liberals can support with some realistic hope of their votes making a difference. Neither scenario is very likely, so we are likely in for unchecked extreme conservatism in our government for a very long time.
That's one of the awkward things about labels. In Canada, we actually have provincial and federal Liberal parties. This is their actual name, and while it once reflected a values/rights position, in its current form, the Liberal Party isn't always the most "liberal" option. Some humor there. More humor in that the federal and provincial versions of the "Liberal Party" do not always agree on the same issues. So a Canadian often attaches Liberal Party history and connotations to the word "liberal". So, for a person in this culture looking at a post about "liberal" is that it is difficult for us to separate what we perceive as being Liberal (Capital L, reflecting a party position) and liberal (small l, a positional statement that has varied considerably over time, geography, and culture).Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
I find it interesting that kestra (a Canadian) and Malacasta (an Australian) took offense at someone's discussion of American Liberalism.
For the record, Australians also have an official Liberal Party. (Capital L, same issues as above.)
Also for the record, our federal Liberal Party may experience a vote of non-confidence in the the coming month, resulting in an election. So, obviously, some people have pretty strong feelings about the word!
Things like the above are more common as is apparent to anyone who follows liberal political discussions and debates rather than just following certain right-wing portrayals of such discussions and debates. The caricature presented by Zimri is no more an accurate portrayal of serious liberal thought than Zimri's views are representative of serious conservative thought (sorry, Zimri, but Ann Coulter is an absolute embarrasment to the conservative cause). The problem is, is that too many people pay attention to the sort of caricatures that Zimri put forth rather than bothering to become more invested with both sides of the argument and that much of the media, particularly television media, absolutely panders to such caricatures of both the right and the left (which is at its worst with the Crossfire/Hannity & Colmes approach to left-right political discussions).Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
Kharum, I sincerely wish things like the above were more commonplace in the Liberal Intelligentsia of the United States.
Hopefully I'll have more time to respond tomorrow, but this will need to suffice for now.
First, Kharum, welcome to the road to recovery from the debilitating disease called liberalism. With several smaller exceptions, you sound like a -would be conservative. Perhaps you would entertain registering as a Republican?
Thank you also for attacking Ann Coulter & Bill OReilly, although I purposefully attempted to keep this disscussion above personal attacks. Regardless of what your personal opinions are about them, if you want to know "When has Ann Coulter ever backed up her arguments with facts?", I suggest reading any of her books and most of her columns. She's a rather proficient researcher and Lexis-Nexis (yes, that drat fact-checker which the media hates) provides so many options to prove her points its ridiculous. Also for the record, the "books" I was referring to include, among writing by Coulter and OReilly, Hannity, such notables as Judge Bork, Bill Bennett (Oh Damn, a former liberal!), Jack Welsh, James Dobson, Ronald Reagon (try reading some of his letters while in office), Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton's autobiography, as well as essays and columns at places like The Heritage Foundation, The ACLJ and the Claremont Institute. Thank you for playing.
Further, you do -exactly- what I said liberals do - twist one's words in an attempt to then smear how they have portrayed your words. For example - Abortion is somehow about "valuing" life by liberals? How in the world do you get this?
You stated "Huh? Abortion and euthanasia are both quality of life issues. Arguments for quality of life issues are built on the basic assumption that human life is valuable. " So, let me get this straight - its ok to kill unborn children, fetus, because their quality of life will be ..what...less if they are born to a parent who doesn't want them? Certainly, i'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, but I must have missed some incredible logic which I'd love clarification on.
The -overwhelming- liberal stance on abortion is that - the goverment should not have any role or involvement in dictating anything whatsoever regarding a woman's reproductive rights. Yes, read Roe v Wade, PP v Casey. This stance has nothing about the value of human life. Perhaps liberals think that the quality of the mother's life will somehow be less if they are not permitted to kill the growing child inside them...wow, thats a great reason. The bottom line is - liberalism's support for abortion always has been upon the right of a woman to do -whatever- she wants with her body, regardless of its impact on another human being.
This was just an example.
Next, I really fail to see how you debunked any of my conclusions at all. I didn't discuss neo-conservatism (which i object to because of its relativist view). I discussed liberalism in America. Classic Conservatism was also not the focus (which, for the record, I don't believe even the republican party advances as much as it should or used to). Attacking Bill OReilly or Coulter is hardly the path to debunk my conclusions.
And Yes Graeblyn, I purposefully tried to avoid a Democratic-Republican argument because this essay was meant to reflect a summary of my beliefs about liberalism as an ideology, not how the Democrats or Republicans act generally. Of course, you can see how well that attempt worked. :)
Kestra, so let me get this right..my conclusions about liberalism and the death penalty are wrong because some group wants to "investigate" an execution of guy on death row who was entitled to file no less than seven appeals/collateral attacks on his sentence? Thats logical. :rolleyes
Finally, there are surely people who don't fit every particular ideology I wrote about. Humans, by nature, don't fit any precise "mold" usually. However, by identifying and explaining the core fundamental values (or a least five) of the liberalism ideology in America, I believe I have enriched the discussion and enabled people to see true "liberalism in america" for what it is.
For example - modern liberals in america (I hate to keep saying this entire phrase, but people have already started to twist the focus) want to increase taxes, have higher government spending, and take more of the income that everyone earns for programs they think are "nice" or "good". This is the basic "liberal" stance today Kharum, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Name me ONE liberal group who advocates otherwise. (Surely, liberals bicker amongst themselves about where that money should go - does the NEA get more for piss in a jar or should we give more to AFDC programs?)
Liberal ideology (for example, read the New York Times, the most widely read, liberal paper in the US) clearly hates religion. Liberals attack religion at every opportunity by pointing to guys like Falwell, Jones, and Robertson and arguing "religion has no place in politics!" They raise the "separation of church and state" at every opportunity, which they translate church to mean "religion." Why do you think liberals object to the Ten Commandments even being used in historical displays, or religion symbols being used in city emblems or in public displays at Christmas. Hell, I don't believe in Santa Claus either, but putting a Santa in a city wide display sure as hell doesn't hurt me, or anyone else. If you want a place that is devoid of religion, head to the Soviet Uni..oh wait..thats right....that didn't work out too well. :)
(I wish I had time to respond to the morality issue here).
I have yet to hear a single logical point that refutes anything I've written about modern liberalism in America. Pointing to individuals who think or do otherwise is clearly insufficient. Attacking conservative pundits also falls on its face.
As a final note on Social Security - its a shame that both Republicans and Democrats have lied to the American people and stolen the american people's money. Both parties are guilty. However, from the start, SS was a -liberal- idea that the state (the US Govt) was better equipped to take an individuals earnings, save it (HAH! we see how that turned out), and then pay it back to the individual as the government best saw fit over a period of years..and then treat it like the government was helping the person! (despite the incredible opportunity loss of otherwise investing that money). Its a shame people object to fixing a clear problem. (Again, BOTH parties have stymied it at one point or another).
Right. If it doesn't conform to some idiot's bullshit straw-man verion of liberalism, then it must not be liberalism. Way to contribute to thoughtful political discussion. Next time try to actually put some thought into it.Quote:
Originally posted by Zimri
With several smaller exceptions, you sound like a -would be conservative. Perhaps you would entertain registering as a Republican?
Ann Coulter misuses Lexis-Nexis. She routinely relies on overloaded searches to make arguments about the lack of the "liberal" media's interest in certain issues. Most famously, perhaps, she used a Lexis-Nexis search to support her claim that the New York Times did not cover Dale Earnhardt's death when, in fact, they ran a front page story immediately following it. I used to routinely read her column and was able to find factual errors every single time. It was a fun game until it just became annoying. Among other things, she has claimed that numerous Americans died during the post-war occupations of Japan and Germany (the actual number is a big whopping zero), that Joseph McCarthy was essentially an American hero (...), and that Democrats have consistently promoted communist interests since World War II (something that should be surprising to anyone familiar with the foreign policies of JFK and LBJ). Almost every historical anecdote she relates is either wrong or so removed from context that the conclusions she draws from them are dubious at best. That you seem completely unaware of this suggests that you are making little if any effort to critically engage with what you are reading by her or the others. So, you'll have to excuse me if I remain extremely skeptical of your understanding of liberal thought.Quote:
Regardless of what your personal opinions are about them, if you want to know "When has Ann Coulter ever backed up her arguments with facts?", I suggest reading any of her books and most of her columns. She's a rather proficient researcher and Lexis-Nexis (yes, that drat fact-checker which the media hates) provides so many options to prove her points its ridiculous.
You didn't explain any of the core values of liberalism. Liberals hate the United States? Liberals think that religion is evil? Free-market capitalism drives liberals nuts? All of this must come as a suprise to liberals who, by and large, are overwhelmingly patriotic, religious, and who are enthusiastic participants in the world's most powerful capitalist economy. I am further out to the left than most liberals and while I mistrust jingoism and cheap patriotism, I don't hate my country. While I don't feel that organized religion has anything worthwhile to offer me, and while I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state and believe that to do otherwise is to demean both religion and politics, I don't hate religion.Quote:
However, by identifying and explaining the core fundamental values (or a least five) of the liberalism ideology in America, I believe I have enriched the discussion and enabled people to see true "liberalism in america" for what it is.
You clearly missed the weeklong big sloppy wet kiss that the NYT gave to the late Pope John Paul II. Ditto for the coverage of the Pope on NPR. You must have also missed the numerous religion-friendly cover stories that Newsweek (another "liberal" publication) has run over the last several years. Again, do some looking in to these things. Don't just repeat O'Reilly. Here's a bit of a math puzzle for you: well over 90% of Americans claim to hold some religious belief. How exactly do you argue that liberals hate religion, given that they make up well over 10% of the American population and given that some of that heathen minority is distributed among libertarians and neo-cons?Quote:
Liberal ideology (for example, read the New York Times, the most widely read, liberal paper in the US) clearly hates religion.
I'm not attacking conservative pundits, just pointing out that if you want to have any reasonable discussion about liberalism then you are going to have to do something other than simply ape their misinformed drivel. Think for yourself, man. A simple perusal of any of the major liberal publications is sufficient to debunk every single one of your points. If you want to debate the merits of liberalism, that's fine. But actually have the balls to debate liberalism, not just some sham caricature of it.Quote:
I have yet to hear a single logical point that refutes anything I've written about modern liberalism in America. Pointing to individuals who think or do otherwise is clearly insufficient. Attacking conservative pundits also falls on its face.
Kharum said:
Hey, he's attacking the "liberal" viewpoint, not the Libertarian viewpoint. 8')Quote:
- I am a staunch defender of the Constitution because I hate the United States.
- I am an advocate of civil liberties and of protecting the people from unreasonable intrusions by the state into their private lives because I hate the United States.
- I believe that the founding fathers demonstrated incredible wisdom in designing a democratic system that not only reflected the will of the majority but that took steps to protect the minority as well because I hate the United States.
- I support [...] the right of all to decide when and how they die, and the right of my daughter not to be subjected to demonstrations of religious piety in the classroom because I hate the United States.
- I believe that Americans should consider it a duty to remain politically involved and informed and to be vigilant and critical towards every action of their government because I hate the United States.
- I served in the United States Army because I hate the United States.
Unfortunately, neither party has a good record defending the constitutional rights and liberties of late.
There was a time when being called a conservative held negative connotations as it is now with being called a liberal. They were painted with the same brush then. The conservatives wrestled their reputation to better standing. Liberals can do the same. Liberalism in current times deserve to be rediculed to the max because it's the only way any large organization will ever shape up.
Not to drag us off topic, but I find it interesting that the "liberal" party in the US has gone far away from liberal thinking, just as the "conservative" party has abandoned conservative thinking.
Conservaties are supposed to care about restraining government spending, keeping the government as small as possible, and maintaining federalism. Modern conservatives sure as hell don't. "Conservatives" in power use government power to further their own moral agendas and have been bloating the government as badly (or worse) than their counterparts.
Liberals are supposed to care about individual rights and liberties. Modern liberals in power care more about taking money from those who earned it at gun point (that's what government power is, folks) and using divisive race war tactics to maintain votes and power.
So what do we conclude from this? We are nicely fucked, no?