This week’s letter comes from Thiel Larson who hits on a topic that’s been blowing up on the Daily Show and the Blue Oregon site, all of whom have been asking what happened to a respectful exchange of ideas at town hall meetings. Case in point, Sen. Jeff Merkley’s visit to Madras that was besmirched by several angry and ill-informed attendees. Thanks for the letter, Thiel. Come by the Source for a pat on the back and bag of locally roasted coffee.
I attended a town hall meeting for Senator Merkley in Madras on Aug 2, and was appalled at the behavior of the majority of those who attended. There was a vigilante mentality among the crowd. There was little listening done, and the worst display of manners I have ever encountered in a public meeting. Many who attended were frankly ashamed of the lack of respect shown for Senator Merkley or others who were speaking.
Some declared themselves Christian, wearing the term as a badge of honor, while displaying none of the qualities of Christ. I am reminded of a quote by Ghandi, “I like your Christ, I just don’t like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ.” Many railed against undocumented immigrants with a hatred and an anger that startled and saddened me.
Truly those who use these bullying tactics have little respect for the democratic process. We are free to disagree about issues, see things differently, weigh the facts as we see them, but not shout down, and try to suppress information which does not support our view.
Fear is really at work here. Fear of change, fear of loss, fear fueled by talk show hosts and irresponsible news organizations. But God does not give us a spirit of fear, but gentleness, love and self-control. Senator Merkley did display this self-control throughout the meeting, he was polite and used the time not only to listen but educate. I was impressed with his handling of this unruly crowd and my respect for him grew as I observed this quiet strength.
Those of us who value a serious discussion regarding the many important issues confronting us; health care, the economy, the environment, war, immigration, cannot afford to be apathetic. We stand to lose a balanced and reasoned approach to these issues. I urge you to attend town hall meetings, and other public forums. Silence is the best ally of injustice. It is important that we care what happens, and that we care enough to come out for public discussions of these issues. Senator Merkley will be visiting Bend at the end of August or early September. Please take the time to attend this town hall meeting.
Thank you Senator Merkley for modeling respectful behavior. I believe some of those who attended the meeting in Madras, owe you an apology.
This article appears in Aug 6-12, 2009.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
“undocumented immigrants”
Liberal for illegal alien.
What has the faith of those attending, of which you just ASSume such, have to do with the town meeting?
Is it your opinion that Christians should just shut up, never express disgust with the plans the left has for the American people?
Obviously you have never studied the actions of Christ such as what He did with the moneychangers, or the words He used to describe Pharisees, lawyers, etc.
Thank you for your excellent letter Mr. Larson,
I submitted a letter of my own that was not as well put as yours….. but I too was thoroughly disgusted at the Brown Shirt-like activities of these thugs.
To Mr. Swipies I would say this: There was no assumption of “Christianity”: “some DECLARED themselves as Christian”… read it again. Nowhere in the letter is there any insinuation that Christians should just shut up.
Also, dredging through the Gospels to find Christ doing something you approve of is not an appropriate use for the Holy Texts. Remember: ” the Angry Jesus also said “blessed are the meek”
The writer hit the nail on the head though – he clearly understands American conservatives and their chief motivation: “Fear is really at work here. Fear of change, fear of loss, fear fueled by talk show hosts and irresponsible news organizations”. Fear is the modus operandi of their minds. Fear of “foreigners”, fear of “communists” or “socialists”, fear of the “gov’mint takin’ ma gunz”, fear of “elitists” and “intellectuals” and now they are demonstrating fear of the expressed will of the American People for President Obama’s programs – fear of “democracy”.
Mr. Party Pooper, if it were not an attempt to denigrate Christians, and Christianty, it would not have been mentioned in the context spoken of, nor would the comment of Ghandi been mentioned. And I know more then enough of the scripture to not have to “dredge” for anything, a knowledge which alludes you.
Now, it is obvious that you have no concept of honest discourse here just as you had none earlier in other threads. While all polls do show that the people want some type of healthcare reform, they also show that the people do not want Obamacare.
Seems the things you fear are individual freedom, the right of the peoiple to dissent (unless it is a matter of which you approve), fear of the truth, fear of having to work for a living without a government subsidy, etc.
Obama’s programs also included the bail out of millionaire bankers, and millionaire auto manufacturors. And so far the only group that has seen tax increase has been the poor, and the lower income (tobacco tax). And now we find out that there will be a tax increase on the middle class.
Then too, it is always a tactic of the liberal to falsely assign “fear” to others while creating a situation that people should fear.
Mr. Larson, why do you label the actions of the protestors as one of “fear”? I know that a common tactic of the left is to use fear as a weapon just as it has been used most often by the Democratic Party since the 1800’s. Whether it be to use fear itself, or to label others as having “fear”. “Fear” was the tactic used to pass the bailout monies. “Fear” is the tactic being used to pass the so-called “health care” bill. “Fear” is demonstrated when Obama urges others to send copies of e-mails, chain letters, etc., to a website specifically designed to collect information on those who are dissenting from the agenda of the left.
You then say that the protestors “fear” undocumented worker, and Mr. Party Pooper uses the term “fear of foreigners”, both of which are nothing more then deceit on your part.
People are angry at the cost to our economy due to the clogging up of emergeancy rooms (which the taxpayer will have to pay for if the hospital does not go broke as many have), collecting welfare, free education, etc., by the illegals. It is not legal immigrants, or foreigners, that has the people upset. It is the catering to the illegal immigrant. Look at all of the jobs that have been lost in construction, landscaping, resturaunts, whatever, to the illegal. Look at how our representatives like Merkley oppose closing the borders, limiting HB1, HB2, etc., visas all of which cost Americans jobs.
In times past those on the left denigrated Bush for his excessive spending. Yet now they see nothing wrong with trillions of dollars added to the deficit because it is the left that is doing so.
And you want to call it “fear”.
Remember those scripted Bush town hall events, where you could get arrested for wearing the wrong t-shirt?
Let’s recall Mussolini’s 1933 definition: “Fascism is an extreme right-wing ideology which embraces nationalism as the transcendent value of society. The rise of Fascism relies upon the manipulation of populist sentiment in times of national crisis. Based on fundamentalist revolutionary ideas, Fascism defines itself through intense xenophobia, militarism, and supremacist ideals. Although secular in nature, Fascism’s emphasis on mythic beliefs such as divine mandates, racial imperatives, and violent struggle places highly concentrated power in the hands of a self-selected elite from whom all authority flows to lesser elites, such as law enforcement and the media.”
Really, Jon, there are Martians and Venusians here we don’t know about?
Nice definition: “Fascism is an extreme right-wing ideology (Reaganism) which embraces nationalism (Patriotism) as the transcendent value of society. The rise of Fascism relies upon the manipulation of populist sentiment (Limbaugh/Fox News/Hannity/O’Reilly and remember all those fairy stories we were told to authenticate the invasion of Iraq????) in times of national crisis. Based on fundamentalist revolutionary ideas, Fascism defines itself through intense xenophobia (Republicans especially Jegglie above), militarism (Republicans), and supremacist ideals (US uber alles). Although secular in nature, Fascism’s emphasis on mythic beliefs such as divine mandates, racial imperatives, and violent struggle (funny how there always seems to be an enemy “threatening America and our way of life”!) places highly concentrated power in the hands of a self-selected elite from whom all authority flows to lesser elites, such as law enforcement and the media (Republicanism – the ultimate elitism – who’d’ve thunk).”
Here we go again!!!”Now, it is obvious that you have no concept of honest discourse here just as you had none earlier in other threads.” We’re all liars, clones, drones, sneaky new-style ultra-lefties who won’t even read your silly websites and then come back and agree with your demented diatribes.
What we’re seeing at these town hall meetings are unruly mobs … just like the one at the Florida recount. This has been a Brown Shirt ploy er, I mean Republican tactic since who knows when.
Working illegals a problem? Fine the rotten exploiters who hire them – fine them plenty.
You sure have a lot of spelling errors and bad grammar for a guy with a 3.6 GPA
No one has a problem with right-wingers marching in protest of the health-care plans. That’s certainly their right. And no one minds that they choose to participate in these forums. But town halls were never designed to be vehicles for protest. They have always been about enabling real democratic discourse in a civil setting.
When someone’s entire purpose in coming out to a town-hall forum is to chant and shout and protest and disrupt, they aren’t just expressing their opinions — they are actively shutting down democracy.
And that, is a classically fascist thing to do.
Just but a few months ago, when Bush was Pretendedent, there were plenty of public town-hall meetings, all of which were carefully pre-packaged, organized, controlled, scripted events. Public audiences were screened to make sure attendees agreed with the party line, and if White House officials didn’t like a ticket-holder’s bumper sticker or lapel pin, he/she was denied entry.
For that matter, ticket distribution was limited to local Republican Parties, and in some instances, Americans who wanted to participate in the town-hall meetings were required to sign “loyalty oaths.” In some instances, a White House advance team would literally rehearse events in advance to make sure attendees said the right things to the president.
And that, is a classically fascist thing to do.
“Really, Jon, there are Martians and Venusians here we don’t know about?”
There are legal resident aliens and there are illegal aliens. Mars and Venus?? Not yet. But I’m sure liberals would welcome them with open arms, tax the hell out of them, make sure they are heavily dependant upon government social programs and always vote liberal.
Party Pooper, it is not strange that you associate Republicans with Facism especially since it is the Democratic Party that supports “a strong, centralized government” (as versus a limited government that the Constitution mandates); the manipulation of the people through “stringent social and economic control” (public education, taxation, excessive rules and regulations, environmental controls, racial tensions, etc.); the suppression of public dissent (read “Fairness Doctrine”, or the refusal to hire teachers, or professors, or give them tenure, with a Conservative POV. OSU has over 180 professors of which only 8 are Republicans, and 63 are Independents. The rest identify themselves as “liberals”).
Say what you like, most “elitists” are Democrats, or “liberals”.
What part of Mussolini’s 1933 definition didn’t you understand?
“Fascism is an EXTREME RIGHT WING IDEOLOGY which embraces nationalism as the transcendent value of society. The rise of Fascism RELIES ON THE MANIPULATION OF POPULIST SENTIMENT in times of national crisis. Based on fundamentalist revolutionary ideas, Fascism DEFINES ITSELF THROUGH INTENSE XENOPHOBIA, MILITARISM AND SUPREMACIST IDEALS . Although secular in nature, Fascism’s emphasis on mythic beliefs such as divine mandates, racial imperatives, and violent struggle PLACES HIGHLY CONCENTRATED POWER IN THE HANDS OF A SELF-SELECTED ELITE from whom all authority flows to lesser elites, SUCH AS LAW ENFOREMENT AND THE MEDIA.”
Say what you like, most “elitists” are Democrats, or “liberals”.
I’d like to argue these points with you Swipies but first let’s define our terms so we don’t go around in circles like we did on the last few posts….
What do you mean by “elitist”
What do you mean by “liberal”
Dude, all your material is straight off the web… ever had, er…. a thought?
and REspond: “Working illegals a problem? Fine the rotten exploiters who hire them – fine them plenty.
You sure have a lot of spelling errors and bad grammar for a guy with a 3.6 GPA”
Mr. Ware
And just what in that definition applies to the Republican Party, or more explicitedly, to Conservatives? And then, which applies to the Democratic Party, and liberalism?
And which of my points, which comes from the definition of Fascism in the American Heritage Dictionary?
It would appear that you on the left have a hard time deciding what to call opponents of your ideology. At times it is “fascist”, then it is “NAZI”. However, it would appear that it matters not what you call the opponent as long as you can call them something which is denigrating. This all ties in with the signs of fascism:
1. “Instability of capitalist relationships or markets”: Is it not the agenda of the left to destablize, or eliminate, a capitalist market with more government involvement?
2. “The stripping of rights and wealth focused upon a specific segment of the population, specifically the middle class and intellectuals within urban areas as this the group with the means, intelligence and ability to stop fascism if given the opportunity”: Is it not the control of the education system that prevents Conservative values, or ideas, from being taught? Is it not liberalism that is attempting to strip away the wealth of certain individuals with a desire to “spread the wealth”?
3. “Discontent among the rural lower middle class (clerks, secretaries, white collar labor). Consistent discontent among the general middle and lower middle classes against the oppressing upper-classes (haves vs have-nots)”: Is it not liberalism, or the Democratic Party that consistently raises the specter of class warfare?
4. “Hate: Pronounced, perpetuated and accepted public disdain of a specific group defined by race, origin, theology or association.”: Ahh, and here we have a fundamental tenet of the Democratic Party, and its adherents. The consistent attacks on fundamentalist Christians, Whites, etc., by the left cannot be denied.
5. “Greed: The motivator of fascism, which is generally associated with land, space or scarce resources in the possession of those being oppressed”: Who has been more adept at taking land from the lower class then the “liberal”? With Court rulings such as in the Kelos decsion, or in support of the envirowhackos such as in the Klamath Basin, the recent federal Court decision placing another 58 million acres of land into a “roadless area”, even the decisions under Clinton like the land grab in Utah under the Historical Monument Act, the 20 mile buffers around national parks thus denying mining rights to those who own the land, etc. There was even a land case before the Oregon Supreme Court (hardly a bastion of Conservatism) declaring that the animals a landowner down by Madras had imported, fenced in, and fed, were the “proprty of the State”.
6. “Organized Propaganda:
a) The creation of social mythology that venerates (creates saints of) one element of society while concurrently vilifying (dehumanizing) another element of the population through misinformation, misdirection and the obscuring of factual matter through removal, destruction or social humiliation, (name-calling, false accusations, belittling and threats)”: And who demonstrates this better then you, and others like you?
“b) The squelching of public debate not agreeing with the popular agenda via slander, libel, threats, theft, destruction, historical revisionism and social humiliation. Journalists in particular are terrorized if they attempt to publish stories contrary to the agenda”: Again, who is better at this then the university professors, of whom the vast majority are liberals, or the mainstream media, or the likes of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama?
Just in closing, it was in a speech on January 17, 2009 at a Baltimore church that Obama spoke of “America’s divine destiny”. This has been highly publicized with the linking of Obama to Lincoln, and FDR.
Then too, speaking of putting power into the hands of selected elites, look at Obama’s many czars.
Look at Obamas retro “hope” poster.Speaks a partial birth volume to the yet untaxed and unborn and their American and European discourse. A brown shirt rats to a washington website about something fishy, The tide is turning. Environmental quality was seen on the maul lawn. Woodstock generation your being used.Mexicans your being used. Those who lost retirements were used. Jesus has a kingdom and your response,whether the truth or a lie, I’m getting used to. I should rejoice at the spoiling of my goods but that is not to say oppression is good. The Lord hates it even though it slithers deceitfully. I allude not to the flag of our forefathers. One serpent ate all the others. I know the Lord
Mr Swipies
Say what you like, most “elitists” are Democrats, or “liberals”.
I’d like to argue these points with you Swipies but first let’s define our terms so we don’t go around in circles like we did on the last few posts….
What do you mean by “elitist”
What do you mean by “liberal”
Mr. Party Pooper,
Obviously you, and Steerpike, have used the word “elitist” to describe Republicans, or Conservatives, with a seriou slack of knowledge concerning the meaning of the word. In a similar fashion you have used the words “fascist”, “NAZI”, “xenophobe”, “racist”, etc., in a similar manner simply for the common tactic of denigrating your opponent especially when you have no truth, or facts, to support your position.
The term “elitist” is easily defined. The best definition I could find is this:
“An elitist is a person who believes that society should be led by a select group of people. In most of the Western world, an elitist would be a person who favored those with wealth, power, education, and/or intellect over the more workaday “common person.”
Now, it should be obvious to even the most dense of minds that this is more applicaple to Democrats then to Conservatives. Notice I said Conservatives since I do not believe that the Republicans are any more conservative then the Democrats, snd both parties would lean to “elitism”. Having said that, it should be apparent to all that the current crop of Democrats, snd Obama, certainly do believe that.
Modern day liberalism is harder to define in terms that you would accept. It certainly is not the form of “Classical Liberalism” of Jefferson, nor is it the dictionary defintion to which you seem to have a preference.
Todays modern “liberal” would be one that believes in an unlimited central government; forcing others to share their wealth with those who cannot, or will not, earn a living; that individual rights are to be determined by the government not ones conscience; that government has the right, and the obligation, to promote moral values through public education, laws such a “hate speech” laws, “tolerance” classes (which obviously have failed considering the type of “tolerance” you, and others, have shown; collectivist thinking in the place of critical thinking; and the list goes on.
I know you have a hard time reading, and comprehending, some of the sites I have referred you to, however, I would suggest another one for you:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=2138
Get back to me if you have any more questions.
And just what in that definition applies to the Republican Party, or more explicitedly, to Conservatives ANSWER: ALL OF IT? And then, which applies to the Democratic Party, and liberalism? VERY LITTLE
And which of my points, which comes (COME) from the definition of Fascism in the American Heritage Dictionary? CONGRATULATIONS, YOU BOUGHT A DICTIONARY!
It would appear that you on the left have a hard time deciding what to call opponents of your ideology SAME TO YOU: ARE THEY LIBERALS OR DEMOCRATS OR SOCIALISTS?. At times it is “fascist”, then it is “NAZI”. However, it would appear that it matters not what you call the opponent as long as you can call them something which is denigrating. This all ties in with the signs of fascism:
1. “Instability of capitalist relationships or markets NOT A FACET OF FASCISM”: Is it not the agenda of the left to destablize, or eliminate, a capitalist market with more government involvement? NO
2. “The stripping of rights and wealth focused upon a specific segment of the population, specifically the middle class and intellectuals within urban areas as this the group with the means, intelligence and ability to stop fascism if given the opportunity”: Is it not the control of the education system that prevents Conservative values, or ideas, from being taught NO ? Is it not liberalism that is attempting to strip away the wealth of certain individuals with a desire to “spread the wealth”? NO
3. “Discontent among the rural lower middle class (clerks, secretaries, white collar labor). Consistent discontent among the general middle and lower middle classes against the oppressing upper-classes (haves vs have-nots)”: Is it not liberalism, or the Democratic Party that consistently raises the specter of class warfare? NO
4. “Hate: Pronounced, perpetuated and accepted public disdain of a specific group defined by race, origin, theology or association.”: Ahh, and here we have a fundamental tenet of the Democratic Party, NO IT ISN’T and its adherents. The consistent attacks on fundamentalist Christians, Whites, etc., by the left cannot be denied. YES THEY CAN
5. “Greed: The motivator of fascism NO… THAT’S CAPITALISM WRONG AGAIN, which is generally associated with land, space or scarce resources in the possession of those being oppressed”: Who has been more adept at taking land from the lower class then the “liberal”? With Court rulings such as in the Kelos decsion, or in support of the envirowhackos such as in the Klamath Basin, the recent federal Court decision placing another 58 million acres of land into a “roadless area”, even the decisions under Clinton like the land grab in Utah under the Historical Monument Act, the 20 mile buffers around national parks thus denying mining rights to those who own the land, etc. There was even a land case before the Oregon Supreme Court (hardly a bastion of Conservatism) declaring that the animals a landowner down by Madras had imported, fenced in, and fed, were the “proprty of the State”. ZZZZZZ
Swipies
“Modern day liberalism is harder to define in terms that you would accept”
Please define “modern day liberalism” so we can discuss it.
“It certainly is not the form of “Classical Liberalism” of Jefferson, nor is it the dictionary defintion to which you seem to have a preference”
All I want is YOUR definition of liberalism – then I’ll know what YOU mean by the term. Also please define “classical liberalism” and explain how it differs from “modern day liberalism”
Todays modern “liberal” would be one that believes in an unlimited central government; forcing others to share their wealth with those who cannot, or will not, earn a living; that individual rights are to be determined by the government not ones conscience; that government has the right, and the obligation, to promote moral values through public education, laws such a “hate speech” laws, “tolerance” classes (which obviously have failed considering the type of “tolerance” you, and others, have shown; collectivist thinking in the place of critical thinking; and the list goes on”
This definition seems closer to “Communism” than “liberalism” – there is no means by which a person who wishes to reduce freedom or “force” anyone to do what they do not wish to do (libertas) can be termed a “liberal”. The terms used should at least be logically descriptive of alleged characteristics – these are not. I personally have not only never been in a “tolerance” class but this is the first I’ve heard of them
“Obviously you, and Steerpike, have used the word “elitist” to describe Republicans, or Conservatives, with a seriou slack of knowledge concerning the meaning of the word. In a similar fashion you have used the words “fascist”, “NAZI”, “xenophobe”, “racist”, etc., in a similar manner simply for the common tactic of denigrating your opponent especially when you have no truth, or facts, to support your position. YOU’D KNOW, THIS IS WHAT YOU DO ALL THE TIME. LOL
The term “elitist” is easily defined. The best definition I could find is this:
“An elitist is a person who believes that society should be led by a select group of people. In most of the Western world, an elitist would be a person who favored those with wealth, power, education, and/or intellect over the more workaday “common person.” Thanks for the definition of “elitist” it is excellent…. now, let me go nice and slow so as not to lose you… first read your definition again… goooooodddd, that’s it, nice and slow. Now as you can clearly see you have just described not only Fascists but also Republicans, especially NeoCons to a “T”… Now go look at your definition of “liberal” again… the WHOLE THING now, not just the juicy bits, and you’ll see that “liberal” and “elitist” are diametrically opposed and oxymoronic in combination. Thanks for making my point for me.
Mr. Steerpike, if you are going to deny what I said is true please give examples of it as such. A simple denial by you is totally inadequate since you cannot deny what I said with facts.
Then too, you don’t need facts. Just your ideology.
Then too, I should have known better then to try and reason with one such as you. E.G. show me one point in example No. 5 that is in error? Can you?
BTW, if you think Obama making millions off his candidancy, or the same for Clinton, and then Al Gore making millions off the global warming hoax, etc., is not one of greed, then what is it?
Of course they’re making millions… they’re all capitalists you fool.
Also I haven’t denied anything you said – no wonder Mr Shortall stopped replying to you a week ago… it’s a waste of time.
REquired example in (boring) point 5: “Greed: The motivator of fascism NO… THAT’S CAPITALISM WRONG AGAIN”… you said the motivator of fascism is greed – you are wrong… the motivator of fascism as any Republican can tell you, is Power. What motivates Capitalism… any American can tell you this … the motivator of Capitalism of Greed. This is the example you asked for QED. NEXT!
You’re fun!!!
Ha ha nice one Steerpike
“The term “elitist” is easily defined. The best definition I could find is this:
“An elitist is a person who believes that society should be led by a select group of people. In most of the Western world, an elitist would be a person who favored those with wealth, power, education, and/or intellect over the more workaday “common person.” Thanks for the definition of “elitist” it is excellent…. now, let me go nice and slow so as not to lose you… first read your definition again… goooooodddd, that’s it, nice and slow. Now as you can clearly see you have just described not only Fascists but also Republicans, especially NeoCons to a “T”… Now go look at your definition of “liberal” again… the WHOLE THING now, not just the juicy bits, and you’ll see that “liberal” and “elitist” are diametrically opposed and oxymoronic in combination. Thanks for making my point for me”
I notice he has no answer to this… probably trying to find a definition of an “elitist liberal” in some redneck dictionary.
And “btw”
“BTW, if you think Obama making millions off his candidancy, or the same for Clinton, and then Al Gore making millions off the global warming hoax, etc., is not one of greed, then what is it?”
You do this all the time.
This is an argument to a point that came out of nowhere… no one is arguing about whether Democrats can or can not make money or whether or not they have “greed”… do you have Altzheimer’s or ADHD? Can’t you stick to ONE SINGLE POINT? Is your goal just entertainment… don’t get me wrong, you are funny and entertaining but could you stop throwing red herrings in by the bucketload.
Dude…..Swipies
“Modern day liberalism is harder to define in terms that you would accept”
Please define “modern day liberalism” so we can discuss it.
“It certainly is not the form of “Classical Liberalism” of Jefferson, nor is it the dictionary defintion to which you seem to have a preference” Also please define “classical liberalism” and explain how it differs from “modern day liberalism”
Show how your definition of “liberalism” differs from the classical definition of “Communism” so we can refine our terms.
Please explain how a person who wishes to reduce freedom or “force” anyone to do what they do not wish to do (libertas) can be termed a “liberal” – I can find NO RECOGNIZED DEFINITION in which “liberals” reduce freedom or apply “force”.
by Steerpike , August 10, 2009
Swipies
“Modern day liberalism is harder to define in terms that you would accept”
Please define “modern day liberalism” so we can discuss it.
All I want is YOUR definition of liberalism – then I’ll know what YOU mean by the term. Also please define “classical liberalism” and explain how it differs from “modern day liberalism”
That is not what you want at all. What you want to do is BS your way to some kind of self gratification.
As I have said in other posts, the Founders, or the true “Classical Liberal” would never have supported the system the liberal of today has foisted on the people. In no way would they have supported welfare to the extent that we see it happening. In no way would they have supported removing all signs of Christianity from the public sphere. In no way would they have supported abortion on demand. In no way would they have supported taking away ones right to own a gun. In no way would they have expanded the powers of the federal government to the extent we see today since they believed in the rights of the State.
These are just a few examples for which you have no rebuttal as usual.
“This definition seems closer to “Communism” than “liberalism” – there is no means by which a person who wishes to reduce freedom or “force” anyone to do what they do not wish to do (libertas) can be termed a “liberal”. The terms used should at least be logically descriptive of alleged characteristics – these are not. I personally have not only never been in a “tolerance” class but this is the first I’ve heard of them”
You are a very illinformed person for sure. “Tolerance” classes have been around since 1991. They may be called “Cultural Diversity”, or may come as lectures in health classes, social studies, etc. However, they are there
http://www.tolerance.org/teach/index.jsp
Now, I have given you several examples of how todays liberal is not the same as the Classical Liberal of Jefferson times, or even of the dictionary definition of liberal. The Kelos decision by the USSC, and the Oregon Supreme Court, and I could add the land use laws that the liberal Democrats of Oregon have passed, are all examples of hos todays liberal is taking away individual freedoms. And I am getting tired of this game you, and Party Pooper, consistently play.
So, tell me. Just how is todays “liberal” supporting individual rights, and liberty; supporting social reforms that actually promote a better society; or not putting restraints on economic growth?
Got any examples other then your usual rants?
Party Pooper says:
Thanks for the definition of “elitist” it is excellent…. now, let me go nice and slow so as not to lose you… first read your definition again… goooooodddd, that’s it, nice and slow. Now as you can clearly see you have just described not only Fascists but also Republicans, especially NeoCons to a “T”… Now go look at your definition of “liberal” again… the WHOLE THING now, not just the juicy bits, and you’ll see that “liberal” and “elitist” are diametrically opposed and oxymoronic in combination. Thanks for making my point for me”
Why would you say there are “diametrically opposed”? One of the basic mistakes you make is in trying to ignore what todays liberal is, and then trying to superimpose your ideology on that of the Republicans without giving any examples to support your conclusions.
Lets look at the current administration, or the Congress. No one could deny that they are modern “liberals”. For the elitist part, one just has to look at Pelosi for an example with her private jet at taxpayer expense, her refusal to allow Republicans to add amendments to bills, etc.
Then we have Obama with his selection of “czars” which have the authority to determine what bonuses will be given to CEO’s, or others (Pay Czar). Then there is the Auto Czar which has the authority to determine what kinds of cars will be manufactured.
In the House version of the Health Care Bill we see several committees who will have the authority to determine what benefits will be paid, and a whole grocery list of other authorities.
All of this without the vote of the people, consent of the Senate, or with any Constitutional authority.
“I notice he has no answer to this… probably trying to find a definition of an “elitist liberal” in some redneck dictionary.”
Seems like you have no answers to anything I have said. Just criticism.
You might try reading this article just off hand
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite-education/
BTW, I wonder if you will ever answer any of my questions, or rebut anything I have said with actual facts.
I stopped with this Swipies guy a couple weeks back because his arguments make no logical sense, not to mention that most of his points start out with falsehoods. Look at this paragraph:
“Lets look at the current administration, or the Congress. No one could deny that they are modern “liberals”. For the elitist part, one just has to look at Pelosi for an example with her private jet at taxpayer expense, her refusal to allow Republicans to add amendments to bills, etc.”
First of all, to say that no one could deny that is a lie. Most other democracies in this world look at our “Centrists” as rightwing and our “Liberals” as centrists. Obama is only “liberal” when compared to the right wing nutjobs in this country. Of course, Swipies thinks that the world begins and ends with the USA. Secondly, how does Pelosi resisting some BS ridiculous Republican ammendments make her an elitist? Seriously? This is like arguing with the guy from Memento. He forgets what he just said and then can’t keep a thought in his head long enough to actually make a logical point. Focus. Please. I’m done for another couple of weeks with this guy.
Bendite,
Just like Shortall, Party Pooper, and Steerpike, you are long on rhetoric, and short on facts. That is why you refuse to post back to me, which obviously is BS since you tried again.
It is this kind of BS that made two posters comment on they are “loathe” to post here in this forum. There is no rational debate offered by you, nor the jokers you associate with, and the clowns you support.
Now, I will ask you once again, and the other fools can attempt to answer:
NAME ONE THING THAT WOULD SUPPORT YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE “LIBERALISM” OF TODAY IS THE SAME AS THE “LIBERALISM” OF THE FOUNDERS?
One of the factors of a debate is the presenting of facts, or the rebutting of anothers facts, with something substantial. And since we are speaking of the US then what the rest of the world thinks is of no relevance. Your comment is only good as a “red herring”, or, what is that you say “non sequitur”.
Now, it wasn’t that Pelosi was resisting any ridiculous Republican amendments, and I notice you gave no examples of these “ridiculous” amendments, it was that Pelosi was not allowing the Republicans to offer any amendments.
And, I also notice that you failed to find any fault with the new jetstream jet that Pelois required for herself, nor is any mention made of her ordering 8 more for the members of Congress when the Pentagon had only requested 1. Nor is any mention made in your post of the fact that it was her, and other Democrats, who were demonizing the auto company CEO’s for their use of private jets while receiving taxpayer funds.
So, until you jokers come up with some real facts, not the artificial emotional garbage you haul around with you, I am done posting here.
Someday you may even grow up, and understand that the world was not created just for your kind.
“The first disadvantage of an elite education, as I learned in my kitchen that day, is that it makes you incapable of talking to people who aren't like you.” from theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite-education.
Ken–
I guess this means you got one of them there ‘elite’ educations. After all–you consider yourself the best and the brightest in your posts and seem incapable of being able to communicate with other people not in your ‘class.’
You know–the rest of us ‘unworthies…
Swipies, Dude!!! Why sooooo angwy?
I’d like to respond to your treatise on “Classical Liberalism” but you still haven’t defined it.
Are you aware of the delicious high irony of YOU accusing someone else of “ranting” ha ha… dude, you are the RANTER!!!! Par excellence.
E.g. of liberal fighting for individual rights…. every time a liberal argued against Bush’s phone tapping intrusion…. NEXT!!!
Swipies…
“NAME ONE THING THAT WOULD SUPPORT YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE “LIBERALISM” OF TODAY IS THE SAME AS THE “LIBERALISM” OF THE FOUNDERS?” I can certainly provide you with an answer as soon as you properly define (DEFINE) what YOU mean by “liberal”, “classical liberal” and “modern liberal” – as Bendite rightly said it is the only way we can procede without you “forgetting” stuff, flying off the handle or typing a rant.
On the subject of “elite education” (I note you also refuse to state what YOU mean by “elite”… are you shy?). There is only ONE country in the world where this stupid view is held – and you’re in it. That’s why a semi literate, dangerous thug could get voted in as President twice.
I had a laugh at least:
“Someday you may even grow up, and understand that the world was not created just for your kind”
And I have never found my elite education to be a disadvantage – and I did much better than 3.6
I’ll answer your direct question. The liberal founders of this country were opposed to an official established religion, just like today’s “liberals.” I’ll give you another similarity as an added bonus, even though you only asked for one example. Liberals have always valued education, even “elite education,” whatever that means. I take it from your link discussing the disadvantages of an education that you don’t. Reading your posts makes that fairly obvious.
I am opposed to the new congressional jets.
I know that I said I wouldn’t comment for a while, but it was so easy to answer your main question that I thought that this could be educational. Now, instead of only throwing out questions, try to answer at least ONE question that has been posed by ANYONE on this thread. Please?
That is tooo funny. Four posts from the alleged “enlightened”, and not one to address the question I asked.
Sorry Party Pooper, I answered your questions more then once in this thread, and in others. YOU are the ones that claim to be the same type of “liberal” as the Founders so one should be able to assume that you “know” what a “Classical Liberal” is. However, lets just forget that and use the dictionary definition you bring up so often. Why not answer how the “liberal” of today is doing as the dictionary says in protecting individual freedoms, promoting social reforms that benefit all of society, or preventing the hinderance of economic growth by removing restraints?
Is that too hard for you, or the others, to do? Why are you so needy as to require that I define each term? You are the ones that brought up the dictionary definition. Don’t you understand it?
As to “phone tapping intrusion”, did you object when Clinton did so under the Echelon, and Carnivore, program? Did you know that the Democrats on the Intelligence Committees were told of the program? Do you think that keeping track of the communications of suspected terrorists communicating to the US, or from the US, has some value? The ONLY time liberals objected to the program was when they felt they could make political gain from it.
Cramer, I have no problem communicating with others. However, when the “others” give no factual evidence while requiring much from the one attempting to communicate with them, well, it gets slightly boring, and very one sided. As I have consistently said, if you disagree with me give some facts to prove me wrong. Your unsupported dissent is unsatisfactory.
Shortall, you have consistently proven you have no “elite” education. Your boorish attitude clearly demonstrates that.
Steerpike, you all remind me of the latest craze among those of your kind. If one disagrees with Obama’s policies he must be a racist. However, if one was to disagree with a Thomas Sowell, well, then the Black Man is an “Uncle Tom”, and not worthy of consideration.
Same thing here. All you folks do is rant, and rave, with no effort at providing useful information. And then you accuse me of “ranting”.
Way too funny.
Here’s what I don’t get Swipies
Why does having a jet make Pelosi less of a liberal?
You argued in a previous post that liberals are supposed to be “generous” but then you “proved” they donate less to charity than conservatives….. er, so what?
You seem hell bent on proving that liberals aren’t really liberals and you’ve already stated that Conservatives (like McCain, remember?) aren’t really Conservatives… so here’s my question to you Mr. Swipies, who IS REAL? Are you the only real conservative? And if most conservatives are fake why do they call themselves conservatives?
There you go again Swipies old man! You ask for ONE EXAMPLE of such and such… you are given the example, then you launch into your BS all over again… e.g. “As to “phone tapping intrusion”, did you object when Clinton did so under the Echelon, and Carnivore, program? Did you know that the Democrats on the Intelligence Committees were told of the program?”
What do YOU mean by Classical Liberal and how do they differ from modern liberals? Still no answer.
If “modern liberals” are not doing the things is says in the dictionary definition then they are not liberals at all. It matters not whether or not they CALL THEMSELVES liberals. If they don’t meet the criteria… they’re NOT liberals.
written by Bendite ,
I’ll answer your direct question. The liberal founders of this country were opposed to an official established religion, just like today’s “liberals.” I’ll give you another similarity as an added bonus, even though you only asked for one example. Liberals have always valued education, even “elite education,” whatever that means. I take it from your link discussing the disadvantages of an education that you don’t. Reading your posts makes that fairly obvious.”
True that the Founders were opposed to a State religion. However, it was also the first Congress that paid for the printing of Bibles, and the distribution thereof. It was also that same Congress that authorized the hiring of Chaplians; instituted an opening prayer for Congress; held religious services in the halls of Congress; paid the salaries of missionaries, and for the building of church’s, etc.
As to education, what I oppose is the form of education that is taking place today. In the late 1800’s 95% of the population was literate. Today we have an illiteracy rate of approx. 40%. The education system supported by “liberals” today is more concerned with teaching kids social mores according to their standards then they are in teaching the 3 R’s. Have you ever wondered why Charter schools, and home schools, are producing better results then public education, or why parents by the droves support a voucher system which “liberals” of today oppose?
So, once again all you have done is prove that the “liberal” of today bears no resemblance to the “liberal Founders”.
“I am opposed to the new congressional jets.”
But the congress critters you support are not.
“I know that I said I wouldn’t comment for a while, but it was so easy to answer your main question that I thought that this could be educational. Now, instead of only throwing out questions, try to answer at least ONE question that has been posed by ANYONE on this thread. Please?”
Bendite, I have answered the questions to the point of redundacy. Perhaps if you, and the others, were not so annally challenged you could see that. However, none of you have provided any factual information to back up your claims that the “liberal” of today is the same as the “liberal” at the founding of this country, nor have you presented any facts that refute what I have said.
written by Party Pooper,
If “modern liberals” are not doing the things is says in the dictionary definition then they are not liberals at all. It matters not whether or not they CALL THEMSELVES liberals. If they don’t meet the criteria… they’re NOT liberals.”
Well, you are getting closer to understanding the issue.
Modern “liberals” are not liberals in the form of “libertas” which actually means “freedom of the Church from secular interference; liberty; freedom; independence”. Nor do they follow in the footsteps of the Founders as some would like to claim.
So, what is the modern “liberal”? Perhaps a closer defintion would be socialist, progressive, humanist?
Today we have an illiteracy rate of approx. 40%. WELL WHY DIDN’T YOU SAY SO SWIPIES!!! NOW WE UNDERSTAND YOU. NO NEED TO FEEL ASHAMED
none of you have provided any factual information to back up your claims that the “liberal” of today is the same as the “liberal” at the founding of this country, nor have you presented any facts that refute what I have said. – YOU ACTUALLY BROUGHT THIS CLAIM UP SWIPIES.. SO WHY SHOULD WE REFUTE IT? ALSO SEE MY FIRST POINT ABOUT ILLITERACY… THE REFUTATIONS ARE THERE BUT YOU CAN’T READ THEM!!!
So, what is the modern “liberal”? Perhaps a closer defintion would be socialist, progressive, humanist?
I WAS HOPING YOU COULD DEFINE MODERN LIBERAL FOR US SO WE DON’T GO AROUND AND AROUND IN CIRCLES FOREVER…. ME PERSONALLY, I’M A HUMANIST
Swipies,
Dude, I never claimed that the “liberal of today” was the same as the “founding liberals.” You asked for one example of how they were similar and I gave you two. You made the case that if we could come up with one example, you would be proven incorrect. I didn’t agree with your logic, but played your game. Again with the goalpost moving. YOU made the hypothesis that today’s liberals are different than the founding liberals. YOU issued the challenge with your own rules. You lost your own game. Maybe you should think before you type.