In search of the Liberal mindset

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: 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.

Guliani
Powell (altough he didint get along with current admin, so it hurt his rep and power)

let me do some looking up, i have seen some speechs that stuck out in my mind, but cant rememeber names....

it just strikes thast ill see new faces in the republican party all the time that just come off as great leaders, yet i see only a handful pop up in the dems

i dont see any in the for front of the curretn democratic party, at all, that are good leaders, forget platfroms, i look at how the person carries themself when judging leadership ability

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Deptacon
Guliani
Powell (altough he didint get along with current admin, so it hurt his rep and power)

let me do some looking up, i have seen some speechs that stuck out in my mind, but cant rememeber names....

it just strikes thast ill see new faces in the republican party all the time that just come off as great leaders, yet i see only a handful pop up in the dems

i dont see any in the for front of the curretn democratic party, at all, that are good leaders, forget platfroms, i look at how the person carries themself when judging leadership ability

Yeah, Guliani, is a good example. Powell, is a non factor now, so I don't really count him anymore. The only dem I can name that really speaks well and shows great leadership potnential is Obama (from illinois). I noticed in the president's state of the Union speech, when the democrats were booing, Bush over SS, Obama did not. That showed class. In addition, most of his speeches are about how great America is and how Democrats and Republicans should come together. He shows a lot of promise, but he's a little young for the presidency.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 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.

Vietnam ended 8 years after kennedy was killed. Through that time the liberals in the country changed drastically. The 60s are a turning point when looking at liberalism. Went from being about the betterment of the country to the betterment of myself.

The difference between pelosi, Reid, and Kennedy and their counterparts. Their counterparts have ideas. What have those three stoodges brought to the table?

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Deptacon
Guliani
Powell (altough he didint get along with current admin, so it hurt his rep and power)

let me do some looking up, i have seen some speechs that stuck out in my mind, but cant rememeber names....

it just strikes thast ill see new faces in the republican party all the time that just come off as great leaders, yet i see only a handful pop up in the dems

i dont see any in the for front of the curretn democratic party, at all, that are good leaders, forget platfroms, i look at how the person carries themself when judging leadership ability

Yeah, Guliani, is a good example. Powell, is a non factor now, so I don't really count him anymore. The only dem I can name that really speaks well and shows great leadership potnential is Obama (from illinois). I noticed in the president's state of the Union speech, when the democrats were booing, Bush over SS, Obama did not. That showed class. In addition, most of his speeches are about how great America is and how Democrats and Republicans should come together. He shows a lot of promise, but he's a little young for the presidency.

i agree obama is the only good leader i know of in the dem party

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 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.

Vietnam ended 8 years after kennedy was killed. Through that time the liberals in the country changed drastically. The 60s are a turning point when looking at liberalism. Went from being about the betterment of the country to the betterment of myself.

The difference between pelosi, Reid, and Kennedy and their counterparts. Their counterparts have ideas. What have those three stoodges brought to the table?

The Dems are acting exactly like the republicans were 8 years ago. Seeking to better their political position by constantly obstructing any progress by the majority party. The only difference between the democratic leadership and the republican leadership is that the republicans are the majority and the dems are the minority. Its a sad but true fact that as soon as that switches we'll be bitching about the republicans being obstructionist just like 8 years ago.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 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).

You got the history lecture because you demonstrated a rather glaring ignorance of history.

Genx87: Neoliberal already has a definition, and it has nothing to do with the Liberals you wish to label and insult. I suggest you find a new insult word.

 

[cwjerome]

"You got the history lecture because you demonstrated a rather glaring ignorance of history."

Maybe you could point out where I demostrated ignorance of history. I'm not even talking about "classical liberals." I don't even see where the term is applicable in this discussion.

 

[cwjerome]

ISOTLM Re-visted

Previously, I did a cursory exploration of how the Liberal Left had essentially abandoned a fundamentally systematic, cohesive ideology in favor of a patchwork of various singular issues, narrow concretes, and specific talking points. This was basically because such a coherent body of thought would properly be denounced outright, so a principled approach was disbanded as a pragmatic effort took shape to smuggle society into statism by random, disjointed measures... death by a thousand paper cuts.

But there is more to the modern Liberal mindset. Yes, Idealism is dead in Liberalism. Instead a "pragmatic" approach that is belligerently opposed to political philosophy was formed. They are anti-theoretical, and denounce "labels" and other political concepts while resisting any attempt to identify their own principles... except to toss out the cliched, cynical slogan when the situation warrants.

But one part of the ideological apparatus has not changed- the lust for power. The goal to subject man to a utopian dictatorship of government for the betterment of humanity still lies at the root of their cause. In any form, Liberalism is in the end, a totalitarian philosophy.. which is why they have attempted to "hide" the philosophy and pragmatically focus on specific demands without reference to a larger, interrelated (ideological) context. At the heart of the matter, the Liberal clings to the idea that "there should be a law"... that everything will be alright if only there could be a law... that every problem can be solved by the magic power of a tyrannical government.

The majority of those who see themselves as Liberal are themselves scared to discover that what they advocate is statism. They evade the full meaning of their beliefs... they want to keep the advantages of non-Liberalism, while tearing down the cause. They want totalitarianism, but somehow without the necessary effects... which of course is impossible. They do not want to admit they seek dictatorship and slavery.

There's a reason for this belief. There's a certain psychological predisposition that must be analyzed...

 

[heartsurgeon]

read this:

Liberal Attitudes

i can't say it any better.

 

[imported_Pedro69]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
ISOTLM Re-visted

Previously, I did a cursory exploration of how the Liberal Left had essentially abandoned a fundamentally systematic, cohesive ideology in favor of a patchwork of various singular issues, narrow concretes, and specific talking points. This was basically because such a coherent body of thought would properly be denounced outright, so a principled approach was disbanded as a pragmatic effort took shape to smuggle society into statism by random, disjointed measures... death by a thousand paper cuts.

But there is more to the modern Liberal mindset. Yes, Idealism is dead in Liberalism. Instead a "pragmatic" approach that is belligerently opposed to political philosophy was formed. They are anti-theoretical, and denounce "labels" and other political concepts while resisting any attempt to identify their own principles... except to toss out the cliched, cynical slogan when the situation warrants.

But one part of the ideological apparatus has not changed- the lust for power. The goal to subject man to a utopian dictatorship of government for the betterment of humanity still lies at the root of their cause. In any form, Liberalism is in the end, a totalitarian philosophy.. which is why they have attempted to "hide" the philosophy and pragmatically focus on specific demands without reference to a larger, interrelated (ideological) context. At the heart of the matter, the Liberal clings to the idea that "there should be a law"... that everything will be alright if only there could be a law... that every problem can be solved by the magic power of a tyrannical government.

The majority of those who see themselves as Liberal are themselves scared to discover that what they advocate is statism. They evade the full meaning of their beliefs... they want to keep the advantages of non-Liberalism, while tearing down the cause. They want totalitarianism, but somehow without the necessary effects... which of course is impossible. They do not want to admit they seek dictatorship and slavery.

There's a reason for this belief. There's a certain psychological predisposition that must be analyzed...

Yeah Yeah, liberals are all the same, no diversity at all, just like the french</sarcasm>

 

[imported_Condor]

The fact is that the liberal mind is set.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Condor
The fact is that the liberal mind is set.

Yep, love our Country unlike the Conservatives looking to destroy it, all for almighty buck.