It's the liberalism, stupid

Search

Is that a moonbat in my sites?
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
9,064
Tokens
Selwyn Duke
November 11, 2004


Now the dust has settled and all is quiet on the election front, save wailing and the gnashing of teeth in regions that are now blue in more ways than one. Yes, in many respects, life has resumed its usual rhythms. The Hollywood left can return to the therapist's couch and their Zoloft, George Soros can assuage his sorrow by breaking another currency, Michael Moore can eat to forget, and erstwhile Senator John Edwards can induce an endorphin rush with his favorite brand of exercise: ambulance-chasing. And as wounds are being licked and licks administered to remiss strategists, recrimination and re-evaluation are the order of the day. And a question, one solitary question, is preying upon the minds of crestfallen democrats in every leather bar: what went wrong?

I knew what the problem could be, should be and must be for the President to win a second term, and I shook my head as I watched him stumble through debates and utter nary a word about it. Then, when the President finally gave voice to the truth that was his silver bullet, for just a moment I could have believed in telepathy. Because what was in my heart and mind was finally on the President's lips. But, truth be known, it should have been emblazoned on every wall in Bush's re-election war-room, just as it should be the epitaph for Terry McAuliffe's political career. To whit: "It's the liberalism, Stupid."

For sure, there were other factors that redounded to the President's benefit. The economy has long been on the rebound and Bush is an affable fellow. And I realize that image trumps substance, as most people embrace candidates based on media characterizations and emotional appeals. But that really is the point, because the image-makers and electorate-shapers who constitute the media/Hollywood/academia complex were on the Democrats' side. They had the deck stacked, but their dealing from the left side of it was their undoing.

The problem started with their candidate. They could have chosen a Joe Lieberman or Evan Bayh, moderates whose pasts could pass the smell test. Instead, they chose a man with a patrician presence and a Che Guevara past. A man who has THE most liberal voting record in the Senate — and with comrades like Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy in those hallowed halls that's no small accomplishment. Why, John Kerry has even been honored by a communist museum in Vietnam. Yet, somehow, someway, he was supposed to be the best and brightest the Democrats had to offer.

But John Kerry wasn't alone; he played the same old liberal song to the accompaniment of the discordant din of an unseemly crew of kindred spirits. Take the Democrat National Convention: to steal a line from Pat Buchanan, it looked like the bar scene in Star Wars. Shakedown artists and racial-hustlers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton gave speeches, and the frames of footage that captured them and John Kerry together could have, in and of themselves, sunk Kerry's campaign. Teresa Heinz-Kerry also took the podium, spoke in foreign languages and foreign English, and throughout the campaign seemed like a thoroughly weird, unstable, odious prima donna. But the piece de resistance was openly homosexual Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank. He was allowed to make history by becoming the first speaker at a national political convention to advocate same-sex "marriage," as he waxed passionate about the homosexual agenda. Yeah, that played really well in Peoria. It's no wonder that if there was a poll bounce from the Democrat's convention, the one who got it was George Bush.

Then there was Michael Moore. He is a propagandist in the manner of Leni Riefenstahl but, despite this, was allowed to become a standard bearer for Democrat anti-Bush activism. The Democrats could have disavowed his nefarious actions in no uncertain terms, which would have lent them an air of dignity. Instead, they were hoisted on their own petards as they cast their lot with Moore, Eminem, Sean "P. Diddy" Combs and other such guttersnipes. What was America to conclude? Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are. Call it guilt by a lack of disassociation.

The only positive thing I can say about the Democrats' putting of their worst foot — and increasingly only foot — forward, is that it presented a face that was as honest as their rhetoric was dishonest, a face that reflected the values the party has come to embody. Theirs is a party that has advocated condoms in schools, sex-education that equates homosexuality with normalcy, partial-birth abortion and so-called homosexual marriage. Theirs is the party that has given us the abomination that is big, intrusive government, with its labyrinthine tax code, immorally high taxation and onerous regulations and mandates. It's the party that has worked feverishly to purge every last remnant of Christianity from our public square while facilitating Islam's filling of the resulting void. These are the fruits of the liberalism that has so beset the modern Democrat party, and more and more Americans are becoming aware of it. And many of these Americans are Democrats who realize that they needn't agonize over whether or not to leave the party, for the party long ago left them.

No, it certainly isn't your father's Democrat Party. It has become a soulless organization whose only immutable principle is self-preservation, only source of passion is hatred, and only method for achieving success is opportunism. And as for the last thing, it is shamelessly on display at present. Much to the surprise of most, a recent poll showed that 22% of voters cited values issues as being of primary importance to them, even surpassing the Iraq War. Well, right on cue, the Democrats have found their moral compass. It's as if they issued their members a talking points memo, because they suddenly can't talk enough about values and are saying that they have to change the "language" of the debate.

So, this is their latest con: "Let's exploit the values issue because that's what's resonating among the dumb yahoos in flyover country." But could anything be more laughable? In light of what the Democrats have supported, their casting themselves as a party of virtue is a bit like casting Adolf Hitler as a Zionist.

In keeping with this, some liberals seem to have suddenly found God. For instance, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi referred to herself as a "devout Catholic," mentioned the Bible and quoted Scripture during a CNN interview. How this miraculous conversion came about and how she reconciles her newfound faith with her ardent support for abortion and same-sex "marriage" was not explored, however.

Of course, all this posturing about values and religiosity by some of the most immoral and sacrilegious individuals on God's green Earth is so transparent that it's the ultimate insult to the people's intelligence. In fact, it conjures up images of the pathological liar on Saturday Night Live and I can just hear, "Yeah, values and faith, that's the ticket!"

So the Democrats just don't get it. For all the President's flaws, he resonates with traditional voters when he talks about faith because he has real faith. For all their flaws, Republicans resonate with traditional voters when they talk about values because they defend traditional values. It's not about finding another gimmick, like "changing the language of the debate." It's not about packaging or presentation; if that were paramount, Bush's continual fumbling for words would have been his downfall. No, it's about the fact that the Democrat Party has become a haven for miscreants and radicalized ne'er-do-wells, a purveyor of misbegotten ideas and a peddler of cultural poison.

The Democrats will try to fool traditional voters with the pretense of morality and religiosity. But try as they may, the latter can hear what they mutter under their breath. It's the sound of murmurings about how these infernal red-staters are knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who are a scourge upon this Earth. And it bespeaks of the kind of arrogance and contempt that lost the Democrats this election. In a phrase, it's the liberalism, Stupid. And as many in the red states would say, "That dog don't hunt."
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
All extremists hate Liberals.
Lefties, Righties, Islamics, Religious-whackos etc etc etc

Liberals are that essential part of society that holds extremism and extremist views at bay.

All the worlds most dodgy regimes have demonised Liberals.

You go for it dude.
smile.gif
 

Is that a moonbat in my sites?
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
9,064
Tokens
eek - you're missing the point! Extreme liberalism and extreme conservatism don't define the middle, it's the middle that defines the extremes.

In the US, the first amendment has allowed minority issues to predominate. The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The liberal interpretation of this amendment has allowed pornography and pedaphelia and all kinds of sexual extremes to flourish; drug addiction and alcoholism are tolerated; criminals are treated like victims while victims are treated like criminals; tort has gone crazy allowing the most extreme penalties for minor civil infractions. Hedonism has become a siocial fact.

One of the tricks that liberals use is to appoint judges who legislate from the bench - By thuis Judicial fiat, homosexual marriage has become a social institution in Massachusetts.

Liberalism can't tolerate opposition; it publicly humiliates and reviles people it sees as threats.

I often see people in this forum berating the "religious right", but the only thing I ever see of the religious right is when the left uses them as a boogey man to scare its constituents.

After all of that - I don't hate liberalism - but extreme liberalism does scare the hell out of me.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Classic ...

this source does not even do their homework:

When you look at Kerry's average over the 20 yr period he has been a Senator .... he's not even in the top 10. The period from 1999-2003 places Kerry as 12th most liberal senator overall.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
bblight:

To quote you: Lies, nothing but lies!

To quote this person - "A man who has THE most liberal voting record in the Senate" ...

Bush likes to quote a 2003 National Journal analysis that ranks Kerry as the most liberal senator. But that's a misleading measure, based on a year when Kerry was already running for the White House and missed half the critical votes. According to the same publication, Kerry's overall record places him 11th among liberal senators, well behind Kennedy. On taxes, Kerry's record has also been distorted by counting multiple votes for the same bill. On that basis, Kerry has voted more than 350 times for higher taxes, as Bush says. Using the same measure, the Kerry campaign claims the senator has also voted more than 640 times against raising taxes. On defense, it's a similar pattern. Kerry has been cast as a peacenik, but he voted for Reagan's big defense bills at the height of the cold war (even as he opposed the MX missile and Star Wars). In the 1990s he supported big cuts in the 1990s as a "peace dividend." Since 1998, the only defense-spending bill he voted against is the $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan.
bblight .. great article!! .. Do you even read this crap before ya post ?
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
bblight said:
After all of that - I don't hate liberalism - but extreme liberalism does scare the hell out of me.
What, praytell, is "extreme liberalism"?
 

Is that a moonbat in my sites?
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
9,064
Tokens
Doc - you're not stupid, you're worse than stupid, you're a hate filled fool who storms ahead without consideration for others - his only goal to sow his hatred in all fields.



xpanda, the following article by David Limbaugh from the WorldNetDaily, pretty much s defines extreme liberalism:

In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, respected Democrat Henry Ruth detailed the manner by which President Clinton has robbed his party of its soul. Many of us have been citing his article approvingly, but a recent e-mail I received has caused me to re-evaluate its premise. The mailer asked why so many Democrats have been defending the indefensible Bill Clinton. In trying to formulate a reply I found myself coming to a different conclusion from that of Mr. Ruth.


As accurately as Mr. Ruth described Clinton's degradation of his party, there is an underlying assumption implicit in this theory that appears to be unwarranted, i. e., that the soulful party once inhabited by statesmen such as Mr. Ruth still exists -- or at least still existed before Clinton injected his poison into it. Could it be that the party lost its soul some time ago and Bill Clinton just happens to be the incidental beneficiary of its debasement?

A case can be made that the degeneration of the Democratic party can be traced to its being hijacked by extreme liberals in the early '70s, who have retained a vice grip on the party's leadership since that time. But it is not liberal policy preferences, as objectionable as they are, that have corrupted the party. Rather, it is liberalism's arrogance of self-righteousness that is the culprit.

Most liberals not only believe that they have the correct solutions to society's problems but that they have a monopoly on compassion. They truly seem to believe that only greed and heartlessness drive conservative ideology. In fact, the great paradox of modern liberalism is that it harbors an outright antipathy towards conservatism and the Christian right, ostensibly because of their moralistic fervor, yet tacitly asserts its own moral superiority over conservatism. If anyone doubts the smugness of the modern left, he needs only observe almost any public statement by its poster-people, the Hollywood elite. From Whoopi Goldberg to Alec Baldwin, almost all of them regularly display palpable contempt for conservatives and Republicans.

Liberals may argue that it is conservatives who lay claim to moral superiority and perhaps to some extent that is true. But the reason liberalism has become dangerous is that it has allowed itself to be infested with pride and self-adulation. Liberals have essentially deified liberalism. For the liberal, the greatest good is liberalism.

If liberalism has truly become the icon of liberal idolatry, then it follows that other principles, such as the rule of law, can be casually subordinated or altogether discarded when they interfere with the liberal cause.

For most liberals, whose world view is secular humanist, moral standards are relative and only liberalism remains as a constant good. For example, liberals have historically championed the First Amendment as one of the most important safeguards of our liberties. Yet they have selectively trampled all over this right with the sword of censorship born of liberal political correctness. If the speaker is conservative, his unfettered right to free speech must yield if the object of that speech happens to be one of the demigods of liberalism.

The point of all of this is that if liberalism and its causes are, in the minds of liberals, the greatest good, then it is not difficult to understand their willingness to bend other rules, which, after all, are only based on someone's opinion and not grounded in moral absolutes. The end of liberalism justifies the means. Thus: a) it is morally justified for Democrats to lie about Republicans wanting to cut Medicare and starve school children because those lies will help elect liberals who will advance the liberal agenda; b) perjury was an impeachable offense in the impeachment trial of Judge Walter Nixon but it is not in that of liberalism's current political leader, Bill Clinton; and c) The Independent Counsel Act is freedom's friend when used as a weapon to fight corrupt Republican administrations, but its enemy when ferreting out Democratic corruption.

Liberalism has become so contaminated with self-worship that all other principles, including those upon which this Republic was founded, are in jeopardy under its rule. When Democrats can countenance and even fight for a man so obviously morally depraved to remain in the highest office in the land, they have abandoned any pretense to decency and it is they, much more than Bill Clinton, who are to blame. Bill Clinton, for all his faults, misdeeds and dishonor is not the soul-destroyer of the Democratic Party. It is extreme liberalism and its seductive self-righteousness that has fatally infected the party to the point that a rogue like Bill Clinton could become its standard bearer. "Pride goes before destruction; a haughty spirit before a fall." <!-- end bodytext -->
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
David Limbaugh is an extremist christian hack who would be called a MULLAH or an Islamic Scholar if he was a Moslem.
But instead of writing Islamic nonsense he writes Christian nonsense.

And BB touts this whack-job as the voice of reason :>Grin> :>Grin>

There's no hope for ya dude.
You religious control-freaks belong in the era of mud huts and spears.

You've been conceived 500 years too late BB, just like Limbaugh.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20040420.shtml
 

Is that a moonbat in my sites?
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
9,064
Tokens
eek - you forget who was elected President of these United States!

Maybe you're the one who's out of touch!
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
Dude if you want a Christian version of the Islamic Revolution in your country you go for it, its your funeral.

We had all that religious crap here hundreds of years ago and there aint no hankering to get it all back again. No way Hosé.

Don't forget to tell 50% of your population, the female part, that there might be some ...um...REALIGNMENT of female rights on your glorious path towards heaven on earth.

(But its all for 'their own good'. hehehehehe)

You go for it Mullah BBlight.
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
The last time the divine muppets got real power in the USA you wound up with Prohibition.

I seem to recall Prohibition being the only amendment to the Constitution that was ever reversed in the History of the US.

Thats how kooky things get once you let the religious whackos in.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
eek:

thats funny!

ol bblight Coulter .. scary part is him reproducing ... I can imagine his clan of Dittoheads screaming: "Daddy, is eek one of the traitors to King George?'
 

Is that a moonbat in my sites?
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
9,064
Tokens
eek - what are you talking about??That little diatribe you wrote tells that you've fallen prey to leftist propaganda and have not paid attention to the facts! It also propves that you don't have a clue about American culture.

The facts are that most of the so called "religious zealots" are moderates who would seek a centerist path for such issues as abortion -most of these issues are states rights issues any way.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
speaking of abortion ... any clue where Bush stands on this issue?

I know when he first ran for office in 1978 in TX he ran supporting abortion .. got his ass kicked and Daddy gave him a talk ...

Notice his first appt in Term #2 supports abortions ....

Bush will say anything to anyone as long as there is a chance they believe the crap flowing out of his lips
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
Hey BB, to prove the retarded level of horseshit that guys like Limbaugh produce I have made a few simple edits.

Yup. He's a real genius. :>Grin>

-----------------------------------------------------------
My edits Are:
Replaced Ruth with Powell:
Replaced Clinton with Bush:
Replaced Democrat with Republican:
Replaced Conservative with Liberal
Replaced Liberal with conservative.
Replaced left with right and vice versa.
A couple of tweeks and voilla!


As accurately as Mr. Powell described Bush's degradation of his party, there is an underlying assumption implicit in this theory that appears to be unwarranted, i. e., that the soulful party once inhabited by statesmen such as Mr. Powell still exists -- or at least still existed before Bush injected his poison into it. Could it be that the party lost its soul some time ago and Bush just happens to be the incidental beneficiary of its debasement?
A case can be made that the degeneration of the Republican party can be traced to its being hijacked by extreme conservatives in the early '80s, who have retained a vice grip on the party's leadership since that time. But it is not conservative policy preferences, as objectionable as they are, that have corrupted the party. Rather, it is conservativeism's arrogance of self-righteousness that is the culprit.

Most conservatives not only believe that they have the correct solutions to society's problems but that they have a monopoly on compassion. They truly seem to believe that only greed and heartlessness drive liberal ideology. In fact, the great paradox of modern conservativeism is that it harbors an outright antipathy towards liberalism and the Christian left, ostensibly because of their moralistic fervor, yet tacitly asserts its own moral superiority over liberalism. If anyone doubts the smugness of the modern right, he needs only observe almost any public statement by its poster-people, the FoxNews elite. From Anne Coulter to David Limbaugh, almost all of them regularly display palpable contempt for Liberalism and Democrats.

conservatives may argue that it is Liberals who lay claim to moral superiority and perhaps to some extent that is true. But the reason conservativeism has become dangerous is that it has allowed itself to be infested with pride and self-adulation. conservatives have essentially deified conservativeism. For the conservative, the greatest good is conservativeism.

If conservativeism has truly become the icon of conservative idolatry, then it follows that other principles, such as the rule of law, can be casually subordinated or altogether discarded when they interfere with the conservative cause.

For most conservatives, whose world view is non-secular humanist, moral standards are relative and only conservativeism remains as a constant good. For example, conservatives have historically championed the First Amendment as one of the most important safeguards of our liberties. Yet they have selectively trampled all over this right with the sword of censorship born of conservative political correctness. If the speaker is liberal, his unfettered right to free speech must yield if the object of that speech happens to be one of the demigods of conservativeism.

The point of all of this is that if conservativeism and its causes are, in the minds of conservatives, the greatest good, then it is not difficult to understand their willingness to bend other rules, which, after all, are only based on someone's opinion and not grounded in moral absolutes. The end of conservativeism justifies the means. Thus: a) it is morally justified for Republicans to lie about Democrats wanting to cut Medicare and starve school children because those lies will help elect conservatives who will advance the conservative agenda; b) perjury was an impeachable offense in the impeachment trial of Judge Walter Nixon but it is not in that of conservativeism's current political leader, Bush; and c) The Independent Counsel Act is freedom's friend when used as a weapon to fight corrupt Democrat administrations, but its enemy when ferreting out Republican corruption.

conservativeism has become so contaminated with self-worship that all other principles, including those upon which this Republic was founded, are in jeopardy under its rule. When Republicans can countenance and even fight for a man so obviously morally depraved to remain in the highest office in the land, they have abandoned any pretense to decency and it is they, much more than Bush, who are to blame. Bush, for all his faults, misdeeds and dishonor is not the soul-destroyer of the Republican Party. It is extreme conservativeism and its seductive self-righteousness that has fatally infected the party to the point that a rogue like Bush could become its standard bearer. "Pride goes before destruction; a haughty spirit before a fall."
 

Is that a moonbat in my sites?
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
9,064
Tokens
eek - I don't know! I read it and it makes absolutely no sense! Following is a statement from your edited script that supports this: "For most conservatives, whose world view is non-secular humanist, moral standards are relative and only conservativeism remains as a constant good."

Many conservatives are secular, but very few conservatives are humanist. Also, there is no conservativism without moral and ethical standards.

I understand what you're attempting to do - but it just doesn't fly! Concepts such as morals, ethics and honor can be religious or secular in nature, and still apply - but modern humanism seems to say (at least to me) that the ends do justify the means - so morals, ethics and honor are more of a hinderance than a help - in other words, they're nice concepts but do not apply.

Nice try - you get an "A" for effort, but an "F" for content.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
I'm confused, blight. You say that 'very few conservatives are humanist' but yet you post a WND article :)kicking:) that says that liberals think they have a monopoly on morality. Hmm. What good is any version of morality if it cannot call itself humanist?

The real difference between liberals and conservatives is social: conservatives want everything to stay the same (in the case of the US, this means white, hetero, macho, and Christian) while liberals make efforts to expand the 'in-group.' Some liberals, like me, would rather see the state abandon conservative practices that keep the in-group so teensy -- for example, abolishing any and all legislation that encourages or sanctions racism/sexism. This includes what you call affirmative action. Conservatives would want to abolish affirmative action but not necessarily abolish the legislation that keeps certain races and women at arms length (though this is probably now applicable to an older generation of conservatives.) Etc.
 

Is that a moonbat in my sites?
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
9,064
Tokens
xpanda - what the liberals would have you believe and what they do are two different things.

Look at the coalition that makes up the core of the Democrat Party - There's the ultra left feminists such as NOW, there's the homosexual lobby, the government and teachers unions, Hollywood and the arts and entertainment industry, there's tort lawyers, there's the racial lobby. I'm sure I could come up with others - but you probably get the idea.

The goal of the modern Democrat party is to control the courts and to legislate a social agenda from the bench. They've suborned the rights of the majority through the courts. Their social agenda is simple - there are no boundaries on any form of language, or on any of the so called arts - filth, defilement, inuendo and lewdity are all for sale as art. For abortion - it's all about the womans rights and nothing about the rights of the child (even if the child could live unaided outside of the womb); for the homosexual lobby it's about teaching homosexuality as a norm and allowing sanctioned marriages between homosexuals ( and for the more predatory homosexuals, I'm sure there's a hidden agenda). For the teachers unions it's all about the teachers - usually at the expense of the student). For government employee unions - it's about wages and benefits (one of the few issues I could support) and for the Hollywood crowd it's all about them! - they don't want any kind of censorship on their "art".

My goal is to put the brakes on their agenda - to find a middle ground that gives them something, and also gives me something. I want to see their trash controlled. I want to see abortion stopped after the six month mark - when a baby can live unaided outside of the womb - unless the mothers life is endangered, I don't want to hear foul language on tv and on the radio - and I don't want minor children hearing it. I want social agendas out of the classroom - teaching morals and ethics (outside of the generally accepted social rights and wrongs) is the duty of the family - not the schools. Homosexuals can have civil unions - to have otherwise would be discrininatory - but NOT marriage -marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to see criminals punished first and rehabilitated second - if you commited the crime and you should do the time. If you use a gun in the commission of a crime, you should get the book thrown at you.

The way I look at it, this is a majority rule country, and as long as the minority isn't being institutionally dfiscriminated against, then they have to go along with the agenda.

I'm a pragmatist - I'm always willing to support a negotiation to get what I want - maybe give up something else.

That's it.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
You talk about liberals as though they are some fringe group somewhere 'over there'. I consider myself a liberal, you know. So long as that is the case, I will take my word over yours (and most certainly over WorldNetDaily's) of what a liberal is.

You're confusing 'Liberals' with 'Progressives'. It seems to be completely stuck in the minds of Americans that Republicans are conservatives and Democrats are liberals. Neither assertion is true.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,122,620
Messages
13,615,648
Members
101,359
Latest member
mytmofficial
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com