28 Dec 04
We constantly hear about the liberal media, liberal Hollywood, liberal Democrats, liberal ant-American Bush haters, ...
Where does such drivel descend from. Although liberalism is at the heart of tradtional American values, the US today is the least liberal modern democracy (with the possible exception of Israel). Liberal Americans since the 1980s have been so outnumbered, and so far from the reins of power, that liberalism as a a disempowered American minority looks more like a myth with each passing year. Liberalism is not dead, but nor is it represented in any key elements of the Ideological State Apparatus (from the Democratic Party to the mainstream mass media). Even the schools can hardly be called liberal when my son's biology teacher does not believe in evolution.
28 Dec 04
Originally posted by WulebgrI was not aware believing in evolution was a liberal prerequisite.
We constantly hear about the liberal media, liberal Hollywood, liberal Democrats, liberal ant-American Bush haters, ...
Where does such drivel descend from. Although liberalism is at the heart of tradtional American values, the US today is the least liberal modern democracy (with the possible exception of Israel). Liberal Americans since the 1980s have be ...[text shortened]... hools can hardly be called liberal when my son's biology teacher does not believe in evolution.
What else do you think is required to be a liberal, abortion on
demand for any reason, or are there lines that may be drawn
on abortion? Do you think being liberal means taxing everything
that makes money, so it can be spent on pet social projects?
Does liberal mean fake documents can used to smear people,
because it was done against a conservative it is okay?
Define liberal so we can check off the list those traits that fit your
view of it.
Kelly
28 Dec 04
In todays context it is easy to find a liberal and to define them.
They reject any kind of struggle. They only want safety. They are opposed to allowing opposing ideas. See the "crusades" against religion for example. They are sad. They had control of the news media for a hundred years and have now lost it. This makes them universally depressed. Because? They are little children. They must be on the "biggest" and "largest" team or they feel threatened. No independent abilities to speak of.
But mostly they are exactly counter to the TRUE AND GENUINE LIBERAL NATURE of liberalism in the 19th century. The ability to accept all ideas. To encourage all debates without prejudice. To want radical science and social transformation.
Ain't much good to say about what passes for "liberals" today.
28 Dec 04
Originally posted by KellyJayBelief in evolution is not a prerequisite for liberalism, it is an inevitable consequence of open-minded consideration of, and weighing of the evidence.
I was not aware believing in evolution was a liberal prerequisite.
I've previously defined liberalism in another debate with you, but here again: Liberalism as political philosophy: "a political ideology with its beginnings in Western Europe that rejects authoritarian government and defends freedom of speech, association, and religion, and the right to own property."
Clearly, the roots of the US Constitutional system of government are found in liberalism.
But liberalism is not merely a political philosophy, it is also a philosophy of life and education that favors tolerance, open-mindedness, general cultural knowledge, as opposed to narrow technical or professional study.
Inductive reasoning from evidence, rather than deductive reasoning from first principles, thus, appears to me in the spirit of liberalism. Resistance to evolution in the US for the most part proceeds from narrow ideological, even religious-based intolerance of of a host of developments over the past 500 years--from historical study of the world of the authors of texts people consider scriptures to the emergence of modern science.
The war in Iraq, as I mentioned in another thread, proceeded through the American political process through decidedly illiberal machinations, but is justified by the Bush administration by an appeal to one of the canons of classic American Liberalism: the expansion of democracy.
28 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou are confusing liberals and Democrats.
In todays context it is easy to find a liberal and to define them.
They reject any kind of struggle. They only want safety. They are opposed to allowing opposing ideas. See the "crusades" against religion for example. They are sad ...[text shortened]...
Ain't much good to say about what passes for "liberals" today.
It is funny, but you are one of the few liberals who post regularly here, although you appear conservative on certain matters of partisan politics.
"So long as opinions are counted, rather than weighed, the better part will be overcome by the greater."--John Calvin
Now, was Calvin a liberal?
28 Dec 04
Originally posted by WulebgrActually you have a good point. I am talking about what passes for a liberal these days. Democrats -- mostly Henry Wallace and Harold Ickes Sr. -- ruined the true meaning of "Liberal" a long time ago. So yea. I'm talking of the "Party Of Slavery". Democrats. Nothing has changed. They are all converted to slaves by their new Priests Of Stupidity. Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter. Harold Ickes Jr. That crowd.
You are confusing liberals and Democrats.
It is funny, but you are one of the few liberals who post regularly here, although you appear conservative on certain matters of partisan politics.
"So long as opinions are counted, rather than weighed, the better part will be overcome by the greater."--John Calvin
Now, was Calvin a liberal?
A true liberal would as soon die as to deny the rights of dissent and the right to argue pointlessly and endlessly about anything. Espcially matters of passion.
Another famous old saying I just made up.
28 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrBelief in evolution is not a prerequisite for liberalism, it is an inevitable consequence of open-minded consideration of, and weighing of the evidence.
Belief in evolution is not a prerequisite for liberalism, it is an inevitable consequence of open-minded consideration of, and weighing of the evidence.
I've previously defined liberalism in another debate with you, but here again: Libe ...[text shortened]... canons of classic American Liberalism: the expansion of democracy.
ROFL
I see, agreeing with liberal conclusions are inevitable if one is
weighing the evidence properly, so anyone not agreeing with them
must not be very open-minded. My bad, didn't know liberalism was
that important or revealing. Small wonder liberals appear so
condescending to those that do not agree with their conclusions.
Kelly
28 Dec 04
Originally posted by KellyJayby definition
I see, agreeing with liberal conclusions are inevitable if one is
weighing the evidence properly, so anyone not agreeing with them
must not be very open-minded.
BTW, I campaigned for Ronald Reagan in 1980, dabbled with Creationism, and still fight hard for the rights of gun owners. My roots are politically conservative, but they were planted in an era when political conservatives still supported good science, critical history, and the Constitutional foundations of the American system of government.
Then, as now, I read constantly from books and news sources that openly reject my own ideological leanings. Sometimes I am moved to rethink a basic premise. That process of liberal thought is embraced by such conservatives as George Will and William F. Buckley, Jr., but not Bill O'Reilly, Cal Thomas, and James Dobson.
28 Dec 04
Originally posted by DelmerWhich, is why they do not believe in democracy. But, even John Calvin, who was terribly hostile to rule by the people, demanded a weighing of evidence that has become an alien exercise to most of those who profess his creed today.
Conservatives believe that the nature of man is the root cause of political and social problems.
28 Dec 04
Originally posted by WulebgrYou haven't watched O'Reilly lately I take it? It is amusing to watch him TRY DESPERATELY to move toward liberal thought. He is not quite as sure as he was. Another year. If he continues to progress. Why. Just this year he has managed to equate "group hate" of others for his person to his formerly applied "group hate" of his enemies. So what if his group hate was only directed at former employers and co-workers. It's a start. It is all to do with "Bill". He really has no opinion except as it impacts him. But he is still but a youngster. More decades is what he needs. He has it in him. He just needs to gain the ability to care for a few other humans. Then maybe he will have a "soul awakening" and see that there are billions. Not just these few "new" ones he has noticed.
by definition
BTW, I campaigned for Ronald Reagan in 1980, dabbled with Creationism, and still fight hard for the rights of gun owners. My roots are politically conservative, but they were planted in an era when political conservatives still supported good science, critical history, and the Constitutional foundations of the American system of government. ...[text shortened]... orge Will and William F. Buckley, Jr., but not Bill O'Reilly, Cal Thomas, and James Dobson.
As to Cal Thomas. He is a whole bunch better and smarter than either you or I. In my very humble opinion. He already is outside of himself. Which is something people usually don't attain that early in life.
Buckley? Intellectually empty. A Kennedy without the passions to destroy himself as they do.
Who the hell is Dobson? Never heard of him.
28 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNo evidence of it in his writing, which my local newspaper--nicknamed the Socialist Review by some local reactionaries--occasionally carries.
As to Cal Thomas. He is a whole bunch better and smarter than either you or I.
You have convinced me to give O'Reilly another look, although I watch very little TV, and almost never the news. I prefer crime dramas, and one left-wing soap opera--West Wing.
I watched FOX and CNN--with a bottle of bourbon in hand--almost 24/7 during the first month of the war. Now, some of my dispatches from Baghdad come in emails from my brother.
Dobson is more influential among cultural conservatives than Thomas, by a long shot. His Focus on the Family is carried by thousands of otherwise secular radio stations, as well as many religious ones.
28 Dec 04
2 edits
Originally posted by WulebgrCal Thomas is not an intellect. He is Kind and gentle. Real and genuine. He trusts people.
No evidence of it in his writing, which my local newspaper--nicknamed the Socialist Review by some local reactionaries--occasionally carries.
You have convinced me to give O'Reilly another look, although I watch very little TV, and almo ...[text shortened]... otherwise secular radio stations, as well as many religious ones.
That is better than being right. Usually.
He is probably "wrong" as much as "right". Doen't matter when compared to being "good".
Try to catch "After Hours With Cal Thomas" on FNC on Saturday nights.
28 Dec 04
Originally posted by WulebgrThis is the part that bugs me. I do not care to much about gun
by definition
BTW, I campaigned for Ronald Reagan in 1980, dabbled with Creationism, and still fight hard for the rights of gun owners. My roots are politically conservative, but they were planted in an era when political conservatives still supported good science, critical history, and the Constitutional foundations of the American system of government. ...[text shortened]... orge Will and William F. Buckley, Jr., but not Bill O'Reilly, Cal Thomas, and James Dobson.
rights, I believe it is an American right, but it isn't something I
am overly concern about. I believe good science is required, but
because I don't agree some points of faith among the scientific
community I feel like I'm branded as against science. Which is
not the case, I just do not accept some things for the reasons I
have spelled out in other posts.
The word liberal has become something that has left a foul taste
in many people's minds. The thing I dislike about the whole modern
liberalism train of thought seems to be the anything goes, attitude.
Protect the old boys club at all costs, with many conservatives they will
hold each other to standards, because standards matter to them. I
don't see this with the liberal side of life as much. There seems to be
quite the double standards in what a liberal can do and say and what a
conservative can do and say in the media. With liberalism it is push
the standards until they break and anything goes, then wonder why
the world seems to be going to Hell in a hurry.
Kelly
28 Dec 04
Originally posted by KellyJayGood post Kelly.
This is the part that bugs me. I do not care to much about gun
rights, I believe it is an American right, but it isn't something I
am overly concern about. I believe good science is required, but
because I don't agree some points of faith among the scientific
community I feel like I'm branded as against science. Which is
not the case, I just do not ...[text shortened]... break and anything goes, then wonder why
the world seems to be going to Hell in a hurry.
Kelly
I will second what you say about the "free pass" to the good old gay's!
Errrr... oops. "Good ol' Boys" network.
Perfect example -- and I hate to keep harping -- is Michael Moore.
A "simple" (can be translated as 'simpleton' really) artist who lies. Who has no qualms in ruining people to make money. The poor soldier he exploited in his latest 'art' is so depressed over Moores exploitation of his real point of view that he is suicidal. He says so in the "Documentary" about Moore's lies. "Farenhype 9/11". But what the hell. People don't want truth. They want to be on the "biggest" team.
Moore.Who is as amoral as a toad. Yet is held up as an icon by those calling themselves "liberals" in our current culture. Think of that. A total lizard. No soul. No conscience. No sense of right or wrong. An Icon?
I don't get it. Except that it is a sad day for civilization. We have nowhere to go but up.