this is about as true as me saying "todays liberals and not true liberals, they are facists, somewhat left of far left.

Naaaaa... liberals haven't changed much in the past 30 or 40 years. Conservatives have. They've moved far to the right and there's nothing "conservative" about them any more. Compare traditional conservatism, such as Goldwater conservatism, to today's conservatism. They have very little in common.

That's false. Today's right-wingers are not true conservatives; they are neo-conservatives. Big difference. Most true conservatives are somewhat left of center in today's political climate.

Nonsense.  If you read up on the abolition movement from the 1850s to 1860s you can see that it is essentially made up of the same folks as the Pro-life movement today.

There were even abolitionists who acted an awful lot like the right wing extremists who bomb abortion clinics.

I say this as a pro-choice person btw. I don't support the pro-life movement of today. But can still recognize from reading history that the two groups are essentially the same.

The Republican party was essentially founded by abolitionists who were mostly social conservatives of their era.

I don't know what you think a true conservative is but it's certainly not anyone who would be described as left of center today.

 

Naaaaa... liberals haven't changed much in the past 30 or 40 years. Conservatives have. They've moved far to the right and there's nothing "conservative" about them any more. Compare traditional conservatism, such as Goldwater conservatism, to today's conservatism. They have very little in common.

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding Me.

Instead of making broad pronouncements, why not provide evidence.

Did liberals of 40 years ago to the following:

• Violently attack those they disagreed with in public?
• Did they attempt to pass laws that took away our freedom of speech if said speech was considered "hateful" or "racist"?
• Did they attempt to shut down any sort of public discourse they disagreed with by labeling their opponents as "racists" or "nazis"?
• Was their primary mechanism to instituting change based on bypassing the democratic progress and instead doing it through lawsuit and judge shopping?

Now, I wans't aroudn 40 years ago. So maybe they did these things on a daily basis. There certainly were a lot of protests but they were non-violent mostly.  My reading of the time indicates that they protested to attempt to convince the population of the value of their position and hence win through democratically passed laws (like the civil rights bill -- passed mostly by Republicans btw).

By contrast, the same social conservatives who think abortion is wrong were basically the ones who started the abolitionist movement. The same conservatives who think the government should stay out of our lives were the ones who fought against Jim Crowe laws and poll taxes and such.

Today's "liberal" is anything but "liberal". We're just stuck using the term liberal because they've managed to hijack the term.  Today's liberal is really more like a totalitarian socialist but it doesn't flow as well as calling them liberals.

If you want to find the people who are actually DOING something to secure freedom and provide equal rights, you overwhelmingly have to look at the right. Almost every left-wing position involves stifling someone's rights or taking away someone's freedom.

(Citizen)Mike's Daily LogDecember 5, 2006 15:32:08

Naaaaa... liberals haven't changed much in the past 30 or 40 years.

nonsense! JFK would up and die if he even heard todays liberal open up their mouths.

If you want to find the people who are actually DOING something to secure freedom and provide equal rights, you overwhelmingly have to look at the right. Almost every left-wing position involves stifling someone's rights or taking away someone's freedom.

That's just plain dumb. You should pick up a newspaper once in a while instead of just watching Fox "news." Let me explain something to you. There aren't just liberals and conservatives in the country.

To the right, you have neo-conservatives dominating the party. These consist of authoritarian leaders such as Bush, DeLay, Cheney, Gingrich, and Rumsfeld, some of whom are no longer in power, but were instrumental in transforming the republican party into what it is today. The religious right led by Pat Robertson and a few others had a lot to do with it also, beginning in the early 80s. Republicans used religion to help them gain power by convincing the weak minded authoritarian followers that they were the party of "values" and "morals."

There are still a few traditional conservatives in the republican party, but they are rare.

To the left you have the true conservatives, moderate democrats, and liberals. By true conservatives, I'm speaking of Goldwater conservatives. Goldwater stood for small, less intrusive government, balanced budgets, strong military. He was actually more of a libertarian than anything, but that's still somewhat left of center. It's moronic to compare modern politics to anything that happened back in the 1800s. Times are radically different today.

Did liberals of 40 years ago to the following: * Violently attack those they disagreed with in public?

You can't be serious. Granted, you weren't alive back then, but there are things called books where you learn about these things. If you get all your information from TV, you really aren't at all informed. Check out the Weathermen if you want to learn about radical liberals. There's even a movie about them if called "The Weather Underground." Check out Abbie Hoffman for one of the more colorful characters in 60s liberalism. You'll find that liberalism has actually mellowed over the years.

Oh, and by the way, this leftie is still so angry because this pair of undies I'm wearing today keeps giving me a wedgie . . . and that's enough to make ANYONE angry, left, right, or kooky.

You can't be serious.

Oh, but we can. While it is alleged that the republicans have been hijacked by Neoconservatives in one breath, and then alleged that they have been hijacked by the religious right in the next (which both cant be true but then most people using the term neocon are ignorant of its meaning), the simple fact that neither dominate the conservative movement. However, on the left, you have George Soros, Moveon.org, du.org, and their ilk that have hijacked the leadership, if not the membership of the left. And clearly none of those could even crawl out from under a rock 40 years ago (witness the drubbing of McGovern in 72, and the previous 4 democrat presidents to him - none who would be caught dead in the current leadership of their party).

No, bush and crew did drag the republicans closer to the left with his open wallet administration, but the core values of the right has not changed much. However, the same cannot be seen when the left is led by the likes of Dean, Kerry, and Hillary. None of which would even have had a seat of power 40 years ago.

And finally, one cannot deny that the Vermont Democrat party tried to draft Sanders, an avowed socialist (just this side of communist on the left scale). The only thing that stopped them was Sanders was honest enough to reject THEM, not the other way around.

Unlike Brad, I was around 40 years ago. And I heard democrats talking about tax cuts and defending America. Both of which they run screaming from today.

Oh, and by the way, this leftie is still so angry because this pair of undies I'm wearing today keeps giving me a wedgie . . . and that's enough to make ANYONE angry, left, right, or kooky.

One word - Boxers!

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 Oh, and by the way, this leftie is still so angry because this pair of undies I'm wearing today keeps giving me a wedgie . . . and that's enough to make ANYONE angry, left, right, or kooky. One word - Boxers!

   another word: commando

While it is alleged that the republicans have been hijacked by Neoconservatives in one breath, and then alleged that they have been hijacked by the religious right in the next

Guy, you ignorant slut. The neocons saw the power of using religion to gain control after the Carter administration. The republican party hasn't per se been "hijacked" by the religious right; they've used the religious right to gain power.

If you want to find the people who are actually DOING something to secure freedom and provide equal rights, you overwhelmingly have to look at the right. Almost every left-wing position involves stifling someone's rights or taking away someone's freedom. That's just plain dumb. You should pick up a newspaper once in a while instead of just watching Fox "news." Let me explain something to you. There aren't just liberals and conservatives in the country. To the right, you have neo-conservatives dominating the party. These consist of authoritarian leaders such as Bush, DeLay, Cheney, Gingrich, and Rumsfeld, some of whom are no longer in power, but were instrumental in transforming the republican party into what it is today. The religious right led by Pat Robertson and a few others had a lot to do with it also, beginning in the early 80s. Republicans used religion to help them gain power by convincing the weak minded authoritarian followers that they were the party of "values" and "morals."

So that's it? I provide a series of specific examples of conservatives through history and your response is that I'm dumb and that I need to quit watcing Fox News.

You then completely brush off what I pointed out about the Republican party throughout history. The Republican party started out as the abolitionist movement in the United States in 1854. It was founded by Christian conservatives (which I'm not one) to help organize to fight against slavery.

Since then, it has been the party of desegregation, the party of civil rights (it was Republicans who passed the 1965 Civil Rights bill with the majority of Democrats voting against it).

I'll also use your own words to point out who really is authoritarian: The person who thinks their opponents are "dumb" and "weak minded" or the person who does not.  Once you have convinced yourself that your opponents are sub-human it's easy to start ruling them as if they were inferior eh?

Hence - why liberals try to use the courts to get their way while conservatives tend to use referendums and the democratic process.

Here's the kicker: Liberals try to get things like gay marriage or racial quotas through not through democracy but through judicial fiat. When challenges, they will argue that conservatives are too dumb and too brainwashed to "do the right thing".

So tell me, who's the authoritarian? The one calling people "weak minded" or the one who feels every should have the right to their opinion and vote their own conscience?

Notice how Mike gives no evidence to back up his assertions.  The neocons like Gingrich are simply authoritarian. No examples. No evidence. Just a proclaimation that he is intelligent and wise and we need to just accept him.

Let's watch the train wreck continue:

There are still a few traditional conservatives in the republican party, but they are rare. To the left you have the true conservatives, moderate democrats, and liberals. By true conservatives, I'm speaking of Goldwater conservatives. Goldwater stood for small, less intrusive government, balanced budgets, strong military. He was actually more of a libertarian than anything, but that's still somewhat left of center. It's moronic to compare modern politics to anything that happened back in the 1800s. Times are radically different today.

Note again, just proclaimations. No evidence. He simply states what is what without any sort of rationale.  He states that "true conservatives" are rare despite evidence to the contrary (such as the recent election in which the Republicans lost both houses of congress largely because conservatives are unhappy with Bush).

If you want to know how most libertarians vote, you can look it up. I have. Here's a clue: It's not for Democrats.

As for my evidence that I presented - the contemporary examples are ignored by Mike. While the examples from the 1800s and early 1900s are considered "moronic" because, well, there's really nothing to learn from history. Times are "radically" different today (though no examples are actually given to illustrate this radical difference in human philosophy).

You can't be serious. Granted, you weren't alive back then, but there are things called books where you learn about these things. If you get all your information from TV, you really aren't at all informed. Check out the Weathermen if you want to learn about radical liberals. There's even a movie about them if called "The Weather Underground." Check out Abbie Hoffman for one of the more colorful characters in 60s liberalism. You'll find that liberalism has actually mellowed over the years.

More insults.  Why can't weak minded people like me accept his obvious superiority? His strawman argument -- that the existence of radical liberals -- somehow undercuts the point I was making that today's liberals are reflexively anti-freedom of speech.

In fact, just look at his attacks on Fox News. Some little cable news channel is so scary to them that they have to attack its credibility at every turn (without providing -- you know -- evidence other than mindless links to other sites rather than doing what I did in the NYT article where I simply went to their home page and listed their top stories).

40 years ago, a Barry Goldwater could go on stage at Columbia and give a speech. Today, that same speech would almost certainly be interupted by someone attacking him on stage. Maybe only a pie in the face. But more likely being drowned out by "non authoritarian" liberals calling him a racist or a Nazi.

Mike seems to think that the existence of a thing means there has been no change.  Well, we had crime 50 years ago too and there's crime today. Does that mean it's out of bounds to observe the changes in the rate of crime?

...

Which brings us back to the actual part of this discussion that caused Mike to start foaming at the mouth:

Liberals are still angry because they are, in general, incapable of moving their agenda forward because the personality traits that cause someone to be a liberal in the United States largely preclude them from having the skills to be a leader. Those skills include the abiilty to make a coherent case. The ability to persuade other people. The ability to build empathy. These are basic skills necessary for leadership and the modern American liberal is sorely lacking them.

Without leadership, one cannot accomplish goals. And that failure creates frustration. Hence, liberals are angry.

And when someone wants to look back at people who would be considered liberals today, you would have difficulty (outside of politics and even there, it's a tough call) to even list leaders who would be considered "liberal". 

When I first put that challenge up, we got FDR (I'll even grant that one -- 70 years ago) and then a really sad attempt to reclaim men from the 18th and 19th centuries who would today be certainly considered conservatives.

Look at Mike's responses for an example of why liberals are still so angry.  He can't even formulate an argument or a debate point.  He simply proclaims things as being "True" without any rationale and then just insults his opponents. Any reasonable person could read what I've written and know that I'm fairly well read.

If I point out that the abolitionist movement of the 1850s were mostly made up of Christians conservatives with the occasional violent John Brown, this (I think anyway) is pretty similar to the pro-life movement of today. 

Note that I didn't just insist and demand that people accept my statements. I made statements and then I provided my rationale for it. Now, people can disagree with my reasons and debate those reasons, but at least we're debating actual issues.

Contrast that with the liberal response which is simply to call me names and insist I need to quit watching Fox News. That's basically his response. That's the liberal retort. Agree with him or you're a stupid sheeple.

This is why liberals are angry. I think they genuinely don't understand why they can't move their agenda forward.  Was anyone here, left or right, convinced or made to even think about their own positions by anything Mike wrote?  Leadership requires people to a agree with your course of action either by default but also through persuassion. Leadership also requires the ability to make people think about issues in ways they may not have previously.

To those reading this -- who is really the more "authoritarian"?  The person who tries to convince you of their position with facts, evidence, and reasoning or the person who simply tells you you're stupid if you don't agree with them and states the correct beliefs?  Which one do you think, if given power, is more likely to shut down their opponents?

There's a major flaw in your argument, Draginol. You're trying to spin this into a conservative vs. liberal argument. You get on auto-pilot and churn out the same arguments over and over. You form your opinion and then try to find evidence to back up your opinion instead of looking at the facts and forming an logical opinion, kind of the way Bush makes decisions. He forms an opinion from his gut instinct and then has his subordinates gather information to back up his opinion.

But back to the spin. Nowhere did I defend liberals. Throughout my post, I defended true conservatism or Goldwater conservatism, which I consider to be true conservatism, and which now resides somewhere just left of center in today's political climate.

I could provide links and specific examples and maybe I'll write an article when I get the time with references, but if you had been following the news, you'd know what I was talking about. I don't believe you read the news. You don't like what's in the news so you discount it as having a liberal bias.

I'd like to add something about hypocrisy. Many authoritarian followers support the war in Iraq simply because they support their authoritarian leaders, and they defend the decisions made regarding the war by their leaders, even though there is much evidence that many of them have been bad decisions. Again, I'm not going to give references because it's been in the news. If supporters of this war truly believed the war was just and necessary, they'd join up and fight. Some of them have, and that's admirable, but the ones who haven't are hypocrites. Hell, they don't even want to have to help pay for the war. They want their little tax cuts and they put their little ribbon magnets on their cars, but the ones who are of age to serve and are healthy enough but not willing to serve are just plain hypocrites.

As far as who is more angry... I'll give a few examples for this of some TV pundits for this because they are most visible. Compare Shawn Hannity and Bill O'Reilly to Al Franken and Keith Olberman. Who is angrier? All of the right wingers are angry because that's all they have to defend their views. Plus they have no real talent. Their only talent is their ability to get mad and insult people.

Now if you'll excuse me, my pizza has arrived.

Guy, you ignorant slut. The neocons saw the power of using religion to gain control after the Carter administration. The republican party hasn't per se been "hijacked" by the religious right; they've used the religious right to gain power.

AH, an SNL Fan.

And now, for the Hard of Hearing, Garrett Morris:

I am glad you recognize that. Indeed, I will agree they use the religious right to gain power. Just as the left uses communists, socialists and just plain kooks to gain power. Using an interest group is not the same as being run by it, but all too often that is what you hear from the left.

AH, an SNL Fan.

Yeah, those were the days when SNL was hilarious. I don't watch it much any more. Glad you recognized that reference.

Glad you recognized that reference.

I could not remember Jane's comeback.