In search of the Liberal mindset

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
The bottom line is, both sides propagandize and always have. The problem with the Left is their propaganda pisses off more people than it converts! (Thank the "Elites )

Of course I think the Right's propaganda is closer to truth, but regardless of what I think, they have become better at getting their message to the people who matter. The conservative right does a much better job of feeding the media beast facts and arguments that make their case... On the Left-wing side of the aisle, they've been asleep at the wheel. For a long time the only leftist orgs were puny, radical groups that nobody took serious. Only recently has the Left put together some high-end think tanks like the Progressive Policy Institute (centralist) and the American Majority Institute (liberal-- and taking doublespeak to a new level with that name).

Maybe they will build an effective machanism for disseminating liberal ideas to the public and the media. I doubt it, because they think they've been ineffective because of faulty marketing and communications... but I tend to think it's because they're ideas generally stink. Anyhow, it will take time for the Left to build a policy network that can match conservative groups, never mind if people will buy their message.

Spurred by the Reagan Revolution, conservatives have achieved a gradual dominance of think tanks, magazines, talk radio, and cable TV. The intellectual capital for that dominance has been fueled by what think tanks have been pouring out in thoughtful pieces that have been gradually accepted by other people. The amazingly simple explanation is that the Right's ideas have been winning in the "Marketplace of Ideas."

You forget that everything changes with time, everything evolves. Conservatives have built a great way to disseminate information to the public today. No doubt about that. But what they have made a mistake in doing is building it from the top down. You have large corporations and divisions like Foxnews, feeding information to the general public and pulling the other major news stations more to the right. You have Rush Limbaugh on talk radio disseminating propaganda to the public. All these things you talk about - think tanks, magazines, talk radio, cable TV - these are all top down methods of disseminating information.

The next wave is going to be dissemination of information from the bottom to the bottom, more like a democracy. And the medium is the internet. It has already started - we have seen the power of blogs and how fast information spreads on the internet. We have seen Howard Dean build a grassroots campaign seemingly out of nowhere by using the internet to spread his message. All of this happened just because a few normal, average people were given information, and they became the tools for spreading the news. They didn't need a radio host, or a tv anchor, or public policy researchers.

The fact is, this next wave of dissemination is dominated by liberals. There are many more liberal blogs out there than conservative. Howard Dean began the revolution, and at least at the moment conservatives are trying to catch up. The next election will be the true test of who can utilize the internet most effectively as a propaganda tool - and right now the liberals have the upper hand.

Liberals will be back.

 

[Proletariat]

Conservatives have no new ideas.

Really. Their idea of revolutionary thinking is the Iraq War. A tired rehash of the concept of bringing 'civilization' to other cultures. Our revolution was the sixties. A decade defined by some of the most advanced thinking since the Renaissance. Your revolution is George W. Bush and Karl Rove. Ours was Timothy Leary and Hunter S. Thompson.


Our archetype:

"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition. "

"You're only as young as the last time you changed your mind."

"Think for yourself
Question authority

Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening,
terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in
this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the
religious, the educational authorities who attempted to comfort us by
giving us order, rules, regulations, informing, forming in our minds their
view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and
learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open-mindedness;
chaotic, confused, vulnerability to inform yourself.

Think for yourself.
Question authority."

Your archetype:

"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?"

-George W. Bush

You appeal to the less intellectual people in society. People who think in black and white. People who like easy answers etc.

If you are proud of that, good for you Jerome. Remember big words don't a thinker make.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

You forget that everything changes with time, everything evolves. Conservatives have built a great way to disseminate information to the public today. No doubt about that. But what they have made a mistake in doing is building it from the top down. You have large corporations and divisions like Foxnews, feeding information to the general public and pulling the other major news stations more to the right. You have Rush Limbaugh on talk radio disseminating propaganda to the public. All these things you talk about - think tanks, magazines, talk radio, cable TV - these are all top down methods of disseminating information.

The next wave is going to be dissemination of information from the bottom to the bottom, more like a democracy. And the medium is the internet. It has already started - we have seen the power of blogs and how fast information spreads on the internet. We have seen Howard Dean build a grassroots campaign seemingly out of nowhere by using the internet to spread his message. All of this happened just because a few normal, average people were given information, and they became the tools for spreading the news. They didn't need a radio host, or a tv anchor, or public policy researchers.

The fact is, this next wave of dissemination is dominated by liberals. There are many more liberal blogs out there than conservative. Howard Dean began the revolution, and at least at the moment conservatives are trying to catch up. The next election will be the true test of who can utilize the internet most effectively as a propaganda tool - and right now the liberals have the upper hand.

Liberals will be back.

I don't think it's really top down. Those medias grew over time sustained and propelled by grassroot popular support. The Conservative cry was all but shut out until new mediums and technologies allowed them to make inroads. In fact, I was thinking that the Internet has helped the Right enormously. I don't know, maybe it's about even there.

But it's like I said: The Left can organize and strategize all they want, but I think it really boils down to the ideas, and theirs aren't as good. Now that conservatism is on an equal playing field with liberalism (as far as voice and reach), it's kickin some ass.

Liberals may come back sometime, but it will take a radical shift. I don't see it anytime soon.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: totalcommand

You forget that everything changes with time, everything evolves. Conservatives have built a great way to disseminate information to the public today. No doubt about that. But what they have made a mistake in doing is building it from the top down. You have large corporations and divisions like Foxnews, feeding information to the general public and pulling the other major news stations more to the right. You have Rush Limbaugh on talk radio disseminating propaganda to the public. All these things you talk about - think tanks, magazines, talk radio, cable TV - these are all top down methods of disseminating information.

The next wave is going to be dissemination of information from the bottom to the bottom, more like a democracy. And the medium is the internet. It has already started - we have seen the power of blogs and how fast information spreads on the internet. We have seen Howard Dean build a grassroots campaign seemingly out of nowhere by using the internet to spread his message. All of this happened just because a few normal, average people were given information, and they became the tools for spreading the news. They didn't need a radio host, or a tv anchor, or public policy researchers.

The fact is, this next wave of dissemination is dominated by liberals. There are many more liberal blogs out there than conservative. Howard Dean began the revolution, and at least at the moment conservatives are trying to catch up. The next election will be the true test of who can utilize the internet most effectively as a propaganda tool - and right now the liberals have the upper hand.

Liberals will be back.

I don't think it's really top down. Those medias grew over time sustained and propelled by grassroot popular support. The Conservative cry was all but shut out until new mediums and technologies allowed them to make inroads. In fact, I was thinking that the Internet has helped the Right enormously. I don't know, maybe it's about even there.

But it's like I said: The Left can organize and strategize all they want, but I think it really boils down to the ideas, and theirs aren't as good. Now that conservatism is on an equal playing field with liberalism (as far as voice and reach), it's kickin some ass.

Liberals may come back sometime, but it will take a radical shift. I don't see it anytime soon.

What ideas are good? You do realize most of the world hates your ideas right??? Reagan put us in a recession and Bush Sr. had a mini-recession. Now Bush Jr. a whole sh!tload on his hands. On the surface it seems like you are thinking but I really don't know if you are.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: Snagle
if 60,000 votes wouldve went the other way in ohio you would look like a jackass posting this.

i know the GOP did well in the senate and in general liberalism is in a downturn at the moment, just sayin

why is that, cause when kerry became prez we could see how he really wasn't "fit for command" cause he had no vision, direction, or platform.....
please.....you guys never chnage....keep up the good work of self destructing yourselves in all your negativity....its been working for years...and your getting a hell of a lot better at it

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Snagle
if 60,000 votes wouldve went the other way in ohio you would look like a jackass posting this.

i know the GOP did well in the senate and in general liberalism is in a downturn at the moment, just sayin

more like 130, 000

no...more like 60,000

it was 100,000 plus there buddy...what you want a freaking recount.....

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
Conservatives have no new ideas.

Really. Their idea of revolutionary thinking is the Iraq War. A tired rehash of the concept of bringing 'civilization' to other cultures. Our revolution was the sixties. A decade defined by some of the most advanced thinking since the Renaissance. Your revolution is George W. Bush and Karl Rove. Ours was Timothy Leary and Hunter S. Thompson.

cause man youthink of some wierd shiit when you high!!!! yeah whats up little green man???? hahahaha please...WTF are you smoking, it aint bud, its gotta be meth to believe in what you just typed

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Snagle
if 60,000 votes wouldve went the other way in ohio you would look like a jackass posting this.

i know the GOP did well in the senate and in general liberalism is in a downturn at the moment, just sayin

more like 130, 000

no...more like 60,000

it was 100,000 plus there buddy...what you want a freaking recount.....

and if 60 000 went the other way, that would be a 120000 swing... it's not relevent, because the results aren't going to change, but either your comprehension or your math skills let you down on this one

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: Proletariat
Conservatives have no new ideas.

Really. Their idea of revolutionary thinking is the Iraq War. A tired rehash of the concept of bringing 'civilization' to other cultures. Our revolution was the sixties. A decade defined by some of the most advanced thinking since the Renaissance. Your revolution is George W. Bush and Karl Rove. Ours was Timothy Leary and Hunter S. Thompson.

cause man youthink of some wierd shiit when you high!!!! yeah whats up little green man???? hahahaha please...WTF are you smoking, it aint bud, its gotta be meth to believe in what you just typed

I happen to believe the 60's was America's renessaince. It was a sudden awakening of our inner potential. Music, art, and just life in general became better for a lot of people.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Snagle
if 60,000 votes wouldve went the other way in ohio you would look like a jackass posting this.

i know the GOP did well in the senate and in general liberalism is in a downturn at the moment, just sayin

more like 130, 000

no...more like 60,000

it was 100,000 plus there buddy...what you want a freaking recount.....

and if 60 000 went the other way, that would be a 120000 swing... it's not relevent, because the results aren't going to change, but either your comprehension or your math skills let you down on this one

:Q wow deptacon got owned there.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Somewhere along the line, things changed. I'm fascinated by the endless string of editorials and links from the left-wing google-mongers here, because the attitude of today's liberal seems vastly different than the attitude of yesterday's liberal wingnuts from the 30s, 40s, and 50s. I guess the only way for them to become a power in the marketplace of ideas was to sell out. That worked for a while... but it's becoming painfully obvious that the gig is up because they have no ideological base to stand on. (Hence the political decline of liberalism in the past 10-20 years).

Whereas the crusading spirit that advocated a planned society, and talking in terms of abstract principles, theories, and noble ends was the norm, today modern leftists concern themselves with single, concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment projects and demands without regard to the larger context, costs, or consequences. Notice the same hardened Libs continuously posting links that supposedly "prove a point"... but that's the problem. They're all pragmatic, extremely narrow evaluations of a singular situation. "Bagdad Police Chief Killed" and So-and-So lectures Bush" etc....

Such a strategy may win a few brownie points here-and-there with some people. But what is never developed is the old-fashioned ideological framework. This is the Catch-22 the Left is in today. They can abandon the broad social reforms of their predessesors (because most people will reject the philosophical foundation outright), but eventually their asymmetrical strategy to "smuggle" this society into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting the whole of these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or their underlying base to be exposed crumbles and fails... just as their political influence has deteriorated recently.

[...]

Basically, they are doomed to repeat their past frustrations and will continue to collapse. During the cold war, they proclaimed their love for mankind while being bored by the rivers of blood pouring from the Soviet Union and China. Ranging from intellectual evasion to glowing tribute towards Communists, they pointed their little barbs at the US for reasons of "injustice," "exploitation," "repression," and "persecution." Today, they are no different. They pour out range-of-the-moment, pragmatitic arguments (as evidenced here on P&N) against the USA, while generally remaining silent -and in most ways oblivious to- the nature of our enemy. The more things change, the more things stay the same... once again doomed to be on the wrong side of history.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN SEARCH OF THE LIBERAL MINDSET, PART TWO

So previously, the Liberals of old (1900-1950) did construct an ideological framework to base their ideas and rationale on, but this classical socialism was systematically panned and never took root. Next up was the new wave, and boy did they get smart. Realizing that arguing in terms of philosophical abstracts would see their ideas trashed once again, they opted for a pragmatic strategy by focusing on individual, concrete issues and skipped the core systemic intellctual foundation. Think of this in terms of P&N: "Google-mongers" posting countless links of narrow scope and superficial commentary, while avoiding ideological discussions. Sort of a "Death by 1000 papercuts" only this was "Statism by 1000 singular pragmatic arguments." This guerilla methodology was mildly successful, but began to die out in the 80s.

The philosophic evasion has now grown full circle. Slowly realizing that the fraud -advocating an "ends" (the Liberal pragmatic arguments) that the "means" (basic Western universals/philosophy) didn't foster- was becoming exposed, they are doing the only thing availiable to them and the necessary consequence of their arguments are being revealed: They are quitely dropping those basic Western universals/philosophy altogether .

In order for their specific, concrete arguments to work, they needed to change the historical intellectual framework. Suddenly the idea of an objective reality gave way to a subjective reality. Potent man became impotent man. Right and wrong became a relativist orgy of denying value-judgements. In order for the far-Left to rationalize their ideas, they literally have been turning the Age of Enlightenment on its head.

This is why they are basically anti-America... America was founded on a philosophy of objectivity and absolutes (universals). This is why any attempt to talk up the US is belittled, and excuses are made for our new ideological nemesis today. "We must never say the USA is better... all countries (and people) are the same!" :roll:

This is very similar to what I have alluded to on the "America's Secret Weapon" topic. Currently, basically by default, the conservatives still hold those traditional essential truths and view of man and existence that have made America what it is, moved the world into modernity, and remain the best hope for progress and human success. Although on the surface many Liberal positions look appealing, a close look at the vacant, anti-man psuedo-philosophy propping it up reveals quite the opposite. The only thing that can result in denying reality, and the ideas that hold man as the unit of value, is suffering and death on a scale unheard of. By sustaining and defending the proper philosophy, one that holds existence is knowable and man as good, this Liberal flirtation with irrationality will pass and another Dark Ages will never materialize.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
What ideas are good? You do realize most of the world hates your ideas right??? Reagan put us in a recession and Bush Sr. had a mini-recession. Now Bush Jr. a whole sh!tload on his hands. On the surface it seems like you are thinking but I really don't know if you are.

i'd like to point out that the country was in a giant recession called stagflation years before reagan came to office and that we had the double liquidity whammy of volker tightening interest rates to kill inflation AND the arabs pulling their oil money out of the US banking system at the same time. of course, you would ignore such facts as this because they don't suit your agenda.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: Proletariat
Conservatives have no new ideas.

Really. Their idea of revolutionary thinking is the Iraq War. A tired rehash of the concept of bringing 'civilization' to other cultures. Our revolution was the sixties. A decade defined by some of the most advanced thinking since the Renaissance. Your revolution is George W. Bush and Karl Rove. Ours was Timothy Leary and Hunter S. Thompson.

cause man youthink of some wierd shiit when you high!!!! yeah whats up little green man???? hahahaha please...WTF are you smoking, it aint bud, its gotta be meth to believe in what you just typed

I happen to believe the 60's was America's renessaince. It was a sudden awakening of our inner potential. Music, art, and just life in general became better for a lot of people.

Actually, the rennaissance truly began in the 50s with the beatnik generation, which was a counter-culture response to the squeaky-clean, ongoing, happy-happy, joy-joy Ozzie and Harriet generation. The 60s was little more than a crass commercialization and more widespead appeal of that.

It's like the punks out there now who think they are avant garde and cutting edge, when they are following a philosophy that's over 3 decades old.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: Snagle
if 60,000 votes wouldve went the other way in ohio you would look like a jackass posting this.

i know the GOP did well in the senate and in general liberalism is in a downturn at the moment, just sayin

not really, its so right, i see so many policy shifts and politcal base changes latlety from the left....saying just about anything, regardless or the true liberal postion, just to gain some points......

and getting half the country to vote for someone not becuase of who he was, but because he WASNT bush, isnt something I would be proud of my party for....

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: Snagle
if 60,000 votes wouldve went the other way in ohio you would look like a jackass posting this.

i know the GOP did well in the senate and in general liberalism is in a downturn at the moment, just sayin

not really, its so right, i see so many policy shifts and politcal base changes latlety from the left....saying just about anything, regardless or the true liberal postion, just to gain some points......

and getting half the country to vote for someone not becuase of who he was, but because he WASNT bush, isnt something I would be proud of my party for....

I wouldn't be too proud of yours in your position either.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN SEARCH OF THE LIBERAL MINDSET, PART TWO

So previously, the Liberals of old (1900-1950) did construct an ideological framework to base their ideas and rationale on, but this classical socialism was systematically panned and never took root. Next up was the new wave, and boy did they get smart. Realizing that arguing in terms of philosophical abstracts would see their ideas trashed once again, they opted for a pragmatic strategy by focusing on individual, concrete issues and skipped the core systemic intellctual foundation. Think of this in terms of P&N: "Google-mongers" posting countless links of narrow scope and superficial commentary, while avoiding ideological discussions. Sort of a "Death by 1000 papercuts" only this was "Statism by 1000 singular pragmatic arguments." This guerilla methodology was mildly successful, but began to die out in the 80s.

The philosophic evasion has now grown full circle. Slowly realizing that the fraud -advocating an "ends" (the Liberal pragmatic arguments) that the "means" (basic Western universals/philosophy) didn't foster- was becoming exposed, they are doing the only thing availiable to them and the necessary consequence of their arguments are being revealed: They are quitely dropping those basic Western universals/philosophy altogether .

In order for their specific, concrete arguments to work, they needed to change the historical intellectual framework. Suddenly the idea of an objective reality gave way to a subjective reality. Potent man became impotent man. Right and wrong became a relativist orgy of denying value-judgements. In order for the far-Left to rationalize their ideas, they literally have been turning the Age of Enlightenment on its head.

This is why they are basically anti-America... America was founded on a philosophy of objectivity and absolutes (universals). This is why any attempt to talk up the US is belittled, and excuses are made for our new ideological nemesis today. "We must never say the USA is better... all countries (and people) are the same!" :roll:

This is very similar to what I have alluded to on the "America's Secret Weapon" topic. Currently, basically by default, the conservatives still hold those traditional essential truths and view of man and existence that have made America what it is, moved the world into modernity, and remain the best hope for progress and human success. Although on the surface many Liberal positions look appealing, a close look at the vacant, anti-man psuedo-philosophy propping it up reveals quite the opposite. The only thing that can result in denying reality, and the ideas that hold man as the unit of value, is suffering and death on a scale unheard of. By sustaining and defending the proper philosophy, one that holds existence is knowable and man as good, this Liberal flirtation with irrationality will pass and another Dark Ages will never materialize.

Methinks history is not your strong suit.

Classical liberalism (currently closest to 'neoliberalism' in terms of ideology, and not practised anywhere in the world) was the guided by the policy of laisez-faire. Minimal trade restrictions, minimal social programs, low taxes, in short, something that would make Dissipate pretty happy with the state of things

Classical conservatism was rather more trade-protectionist, and in fact liberal parties were, in general, the darlings of the business world.

Now bring on Karl Marx, and have the populations of most of the free world buy into some form of socialism (in fact, most of the world supported communism, but we'll leave it at socialism for the moment). Communist parties started themselves, Liberal parties began adopting socialist agendas, and Conservative parties, to some extent adopted free-market support (but not really).

The net result was that Liberal parties promised what was best for people, at least in the short run (sub-50 year time-frame), Communist parties never formed a government without a revolution, and Conservative parties were even better for big business than anyone had ever been, but not in the 'let freedom and equality sort things out' way that the old liberal parties had done. Neoconservatives (DISCLAIMER: NOT ALL CONSERVATIVE PARTIES ARE NEOCONSERVATIVE) offer free movement of capital, aggressive foreign military policy, trade protectionism, and some restriction of immigration, all of which favour large corporations capable of international activity, over small businesses and individual citizens.

Ideologically, I'm closest to being 'onside' with a classical liberal party, which would be socially liberal, fiscally very conservative (at least in the way conservative is commonly understood today), but due to having some understanding of market forces and arbitrary outcomes, I have to support a stronger social safety net than neoliberals would like to have. Markets do create bad outcomes sometimes.

 

[cwjerome]

I don't understand what the 'classical liberal' lecture was about.

My main point is that left-wing liberalism went from A) having a complex, coherent ideological foundation (that just happened to be silly and rejected), to B) hiding or evading any sort of philosophic base (which brought them mild success only to now be questioned), to today C) acknowledging that their core underlying doctrine is full of subjectivism, relativism, and is a complete change on basic Western thought (that is required for their goofy positions to make sense).

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: Snagle
if 60,000 votes wouldve went the other way in ohio you would look like a jackass posting this.

i know the GOP did well in the senate and in general liberalism is in a downturn at the moment, just sayin

not really, its so right, i see so many policy shifts and politcal base changes latlety from the left....saying just about anything, regardless or the true liberal postion, just to gain some points......

and getting half the country to vote for someone not becuase of who he was, but because he WASNT bush, isnt something I would be proud of my party for....

I wouldn't be too proud of yours in your position either.

YOUR PARTY HAS NO POSTION ON ANYTHING.... just....BUSH...is bad...! War is bad...really no sh!t......

you guys have no postion, nothing to stand on, you guys cant stomach anything that isnt giving money away.....

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Somewhere along the line, things changed. I'm fascinated by the endless string of editorials and links from the left-wing google-mongers here, because the attitude of today's liberal seems vastly different than the attitude of yesterday's liberal wingnuts from the 30s, 40s, and 50s. I guess the only way for them to become a power in the marketplace of ideas was to sell out. That worked for a while... but it's becoming painfully obvious that the gig is up because they have no ideological base to stand on. (Hence the political decline of liberalism in the past 10-20 years).

Whereas the crusading spirit that advocated a planned society, and talking in terms of abstract principles, theories, and noble ends was the norm, today modern leftists concern themselves with single, concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment projects and demands without regard to the larger context, costs, or consequences. Notice the same hardened Libs continuously posting links that supposedly "prove a point"... but that's the problem. They're all pragmatic, extremely narrow evaluations of a singular situation. "Bagdad Police Chief Killed" and So-and-So lectures Bush" etc....

Such a strategy may win a few brownie points here-and-there with some people. But what is never developed is the old-fashioned ideological framework. This is the Catch-22 the Left is in today. They can abandon the broad social reforms of their predessesors (because most people will reject the philosophical foundation outright), but eventually their asymmetrical strategy to "smuggle" this society into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting the whole of these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or their underlying base to be exposed crumbles and fails... just as their political influence has deteriorated recently.

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't, and it's almost sad to see them spinning their wheels so furiously in a dead-end road to nowhere. They went from getting their idealistic machinations skewered 50 years ago, to a guerilla campaign of pragmaticism that saw their polices fall short and be rejected today. So much failure, no wonder they tend to be neurotic types

Basically, they are doomed to repeat their past frustrations and will continue to collapse. During the cold war, they proclaimed their love for mankind while being bored by the rivers of blood pouring from the Soviet Union and China. Ranging from intellectual evasion to glowing tribute towards Communists, they pointed their little barbs at the US for reasons of "injustice," "exploitation," "repression," and "persecution." Today, they are no different. They pour out range-of-the-moment, pragmatitic arguments (as evidenced here on P&N) against the USA, while generally remaining silent -and in most ways oblivious to- the nature of our enemy. The more things change, the more things stay the same... once again doomed to be on the wrong side of history.

Well I think what we classify as liberals in this forum are nothing more than whiners. I wouldnt consider them liberals in the likes of a FDR or JFK. Two liberals I can admire and at the same time even associate my ideals with. Hell JFK imo aligns more with my values on many issues than Bush does and he is what I consider a classic liberal.

Liberals today would make liberals like JFK, FDR, and MLK cringe. Chances are FDR would have them locked up for treason.

The reason I can respect and like liberals like the above three is they knew what they stood for and what a great country this is. They didnt try to tear it down at every chance they got and pit the classes at each others throat.

I think the term neo-libs sounds right for some on this forum and senators like pelosi, reid, and kennedy. Liberals who will scarfice their ideals to make a quick political gain and smear anybody in their path.

 

[MCWAR]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Somewhere along the line, things changed. I'm fascinated by the endless string of editorials and links from the left-wing google-mongers here, because the attitude of today's liberal seems vastly different than the attitude of yesterday's liberal wingnuts from the 30s, 40s, and 50s. I guess the only way for them to become a power in the marketplace of ideas was to sell out. That worked for a while... but it's becoming painfully obvious that the gig is up because they have no ideological base to stand on. (Hence the political decline of liberalism in the past 10-20 years).

Whereas the crusading spirit that advocated a planned society, and talking in terms of abstract principles, theories, and noble ends was the norm, today modern leftists concern themselves with single, concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment projects and demands without regard to the larger context, costs, or consequences. Notice the same hardened Libs continuously posting links that supposedly "prove a point"... but that's the problem. They're all pragmatic, extremely narrow evaluations of a singular situation. "Bagdad Police Chief Killed" and So-and-So lectures Bush" etc....

Such a strategy may win a few brownie points here-and-there with some people. But what is never developed is the old-fashioned ideological framework. This is the Catch-22 the Left is in today. They can abandon the broad social reforms of their predessesors (because most people will reject the philosophical foundation outright), but eventually their asymmetrical strategy to "smuggle" this society into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting the whole of these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or their underlying base to be exposed crumbles and fails... just as their political influence has deteriorated recently.

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't, and it's almost sad to see them spinning their wheels so furiously in a dead-end road to nowhere. They went from getting their idealistic machinations skewered 50 years ago, to a guerilla campaign of pragmaticism that saw their polices fall short and be rejected today. So much failure, no wonder they tend to be neurotic types

Basically, they are doomed to repeat their past frustrations and will continue to collapse. During the cold war, they proclaimed their love for mankind while being bored by the rivers of blood pouring from the Soviet Union and China. Ranging from intellectual evasion to glowing tribute towards Communists, they pointed their little barbs at the US for reasons of "injustice," "exploitation," "repression," and "persecution." Today, they are no different. They pour out range-of-the-moment, pragmatitic arguments (as evidenced here on P&N) against the USA, while generally remaining silent -and in most ways oblivious to- the nature of our enemy. The more things change, the more things stay the same... once again doomed to be on the wrong side of history.

Well I think what we classify as liberals in this forum are nothing more than whiners. I wouldnt consider them liberals in the likes of a FDR or JFK. Two liberals I can admire and at the same time even associate my ideals with. Hell JFK imo aligns more with my values on many issues than Bush does and he is what I consider a classic liberal.

Liberals today would make liberals like JFK, FDR, and MLK cringe. Chances are FDR would have them locked up for treason.

The reason I can respect and like liberals like the above three is they knew what they stood for and what a great country this is. They didnt try to tear it down at every chance they got and pit the classes at each others throat.

I think the term neo-libs sounds right for some on this forum and senators like pelosi, reid, and kennedy. Liberals who will scarfice their ideals to make a quick political gain and smear anybody in their path.

My thoughts exactly!
:thumbsup:

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: Snagle
if 60,000 votes wouldve went the other way in ohio you would look like a jackass posting this.

i know the GOP did well in the senate and in general liberalism is in a downturn at the moment, just sayin

not really, its so right, i see so many policy shifts and politcal base changes latlety from the left....saying just about anything, regardless or the true liberal postion, just to gain some points......

and getting half the country to vote for someone not becuase of who he was, but because he WASNT bush, isnt something I would be proud of my party for....

I wouldn't be too proud of yours in your position either.

YOUR PARTY HAS NO POSTION ON ANYTHING.... just....BUSH...is bad...! War is bad...really no sh!t......

you guys have no postion, nothing to stand on, you guys cant stomach anything that isnt giving money away.....

It doesn't say much for either party. I wouldn't be proud to get votes just because I wasn't bush. On the otherhand, I would feel just as bad, if people wanted me out so much they would vote for anyone, even an unimagitive, waste like Kerry.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: Snagle
if 60,000 votes wouldve went the other way in ohio you would look like a jackass posting this.

i know the GOP did well in the senate and in general liberalism is in a downturn at the moment, just sayin

not really, its so right, i see so many policy shifts and politcal base changes latlety from the left....saying just about anything, regardless or the true liberal postion, just to gain some points......

and getting half the country to vote for someone not becuase of who he was, but because he WASNT bush, isnt something I would be proud of my party for....

I wouldn't be too proud of yours in your position either.

YOUR PARTY HAS NO POSTION ON ANYTHING.... just....BUSH...is bad...! War is bad...really no sh!t......

you guys have no postion, nothing to stand on, you guys cant stomach anything that isnt giving money away.....

It doesn't say much for either party. I wouldn't be proud to get votes just because I wasn't bush. On the otherhand, I would feel just as bad, if people wanted me out so much they would vote for anyone, even an unimagitive, waste like Kerry.

yeah but on the other hand, it shows how horrible a pool of leaders the lefts party has when they are picking from the lawyer edwards, kerry, or wack job DEAN.....

yeah bush isnt the best, but there are other very good leaders in the republican party

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Well I think what we classify as liberals in this forum are nothing more than whiners. I wouldnt consider them liberals in the likes of a FDR or JFK. Two liberals I can admire and at the same time even associate my ideals with. Hell JFK imo aligns more with my values on many issues than Bush does and he is what I consider a classic liberal.

Liberals today would make liberals like JFK, FDR, and MLK cringe. Chances are FDR would have them locked up for treason.

The reason I can respect and like liberals like the above three is they knew what they stood for and what a great country this is. They didnt try to tear it down at every chance they got and pit the classes at each others throat.

I think the term neo-libs sounds right for some on this forum and senators like pelosi, reid, and kennedy. Liberals who will scarfice their ideals to make a quick political gain and smear anybody in their path.

You're romanticizing liberals of the past a bit there. Just remember how horrible returning soldiers were treated after vietnam. As for Pelosi, Reid, and Kennedy, they're no different than their republican counterparts.

 

[Delta52]

Liberals say there is a problem, but when it comes to fixing the problem, they offer no solutions, just mindless attacks at the current administration. John Kerry repeatedly stated "I have a plan." on the political debates, and then when asked what his plan was, he would just say that "Bush is doing it wrong... But I have a plan." GREAT JOB GENIUS! If you can honestly resolve the issue, then tell us! This is the unorganized Dempcratic party of today, and the OP is right on about the decline of liberalism.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: Snagle
if 60,000 votes wouldve went the other way in ohio you would look like a jackass posting this.

i know the GOP did well in the senate and in general liberalism is in a downturn at the moment, just sayin

not really, its so right, i see so many policy shifts and politcal base changes latlety from the left....saying just about anything, regardless or the true liberal postion, just to gain some points......

and getting half the country to vote for someone not becuase of who he was, but because he WASNT bush, isnt something I would be proud of my party for....

I wouldn't be too proud of yours in your position either.

YOUR PARTY HAS NO POSTION ON ANYTHING.... just....BUSH...is bad...! War is bad...really no sh!t......

you guys have no postion, nothing to stand on, you guys cant stomach anything that isnt giving money away.....

It doesn't say much for either party. I wouldn't be proud to get votes just because I wasn't bush. On the otherhand, I would feel just as bad, if people wanted me out so much they would vote for anyone, even an unimagitive, waste like Kerry.

yeah but on the other hand, it shows how horrible a pool of leaders the lefts party has when they are picking from the lawyer edwards, kerry, or wack job DEAN.....

yeah bush isnt the best, but there are other very good leaders in the republican party

I'll give you McCain, but he's a bit independent minded for republicans. But other than that, who? Certainly not, the republican leadership. They're the reason, the republicans might just blow their chance at passing the legislation they want.