Drunk on the blood of liberals, the ringwraiths now howl at "progressives"

[John_Mace]

@xtisme

I’m recalling a European poll I saw as a cite in a thread once claiming that some fairly high percentage of Europeans (especially Germans for some reason) thought that the US government was directly responsible for 9/11 when I said this. However, when I said it it was more for effect than that I ACTUALLY believe that Europeans really think this.

You’ve used that poll several times lately w/o a cite, and I think you are misunderstanding it. I believe the question was whether US policies in the M.E. were responisble for the 9/11 attacks, not that the US itself orchestrated the attacks. I don’t say that to condone the former belief, but it’s the two are very different. You seem to be implying the latter.

At any rate, it would make sense to actually cite the poll next time you use it to avoid confusion.

[XT]

@John Mace

You’ve used that poll several times lately w/o a cite, and I think you are misunderstanding it. I believe the question was whether US policies in the M.E. were responisble for the 9/11 attacks, not that the US itself orchestrated the attacks. I don’t say that to condone the former belief, but it’s the two are very different. You seem to be implying the latter.

I withdraw the comment completely then. I did say it was from memory and that the last time I remember seeing the poll was something like half a year after 9/11.

-XT

[annaplurabelle]

@xtisme

I withdraw the comment completely then. I did say it was from memory and that the last time I remember seeing the poll was something like half a year after 9/11.

-XT

Is this the poll in question?

(AP) According to a new poll, a majority of people surveyed in six European countries believe American foreign policy is partly to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks.

[Eve]

@xtisme

However maybe…just maybe mind you…maybe the conservatives gained traction with the who ‘liberal’ thing because the American people had some real problems with ‘liberals’ and the ‘liberal agenda’. I’m just tossing this out as a point to consider mind you. But perhaps it would be benificial to at least THINK about the possibility that perhaps the liberal agenda is a bit out of phase with the American people…

Sadly, I think you’re absolutely right. The majority of Americans hate gays, feminists and non-Christians, want to limit rights to abortion and go to war with the wrong country for the wrong reason, without making any preparations.

There’s no arguing that those people run this country, after the last election, and those of us on the “other side” are marginalized and unwanted here.

[XT]

@annaplurabelle

Is this the poll in question?

No, but that one is probably better representational than the one I saw, which was frankly tin foil hat stuff. I appreciate you looking that up btw. Thanks.

-XT

[annaplurabelle]

@xtisme

No, but that one is probably better representational than the one I saw, which was frankly tin foil hat stuff. I appreciate you looking that up btw. Thanks.

-XT

I found the German “tin foil” one too. Here’s a link to a blog that posted it, since the original link is broken now:

BERLIN, July 23 (Reuters) - Almost one in three Germans below the age of 30 believes the U.S. government may have sponsored the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, according to a poll published on Wednesday.

And about 20 percent of Germans in all age groups hold this view, a survey of 1,000 people conducted for the weekly Die Zeit said.

It also said 68 percent of all Germans felt the media had not reported the full truth behind the attacks, in which some 3,000 people were killed when hijacked planes were crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

[Bricker]

@Eve

There’s no arguing that those people run this country, after the last election, and those of us on the “other side” are marginalized and unwanted here.

My heart bleeds for you poor marginalized people.

Of course, when Roe v. Wade was being shoved down the throats of the American public, and all of the unborn babies were marginalized, as well as those who believed that killing them was wrong, I don’t recall much concern from your side. “Marginalizing” is tear-worthy, it seems, only when it’s YOU being marginalized.

That being the case, I’m happy to suggest that you should stay on the margins, at least insofar as abortion is concerned.

[John_Mace]

@Eve

Sadly, I think you’re absolutely right. The majority of Americans hate gays, feminists and non-Christians, want to limit rights to abortion and go to war with the wrong country for the wrong reason, without making any preparations.

There’s no arguing that those people run this country, after the last election, and those of us on the “other side” are marginalized and unwanted here.

Sadly, you have completely missed XT’s point if you think that’s what he meant.

[XT]

@annaplurabelle

I found the German “tin foil” one too. Here’s a link to a blog that posted it, since the original link is broken now:

That sounds like one of the cites I remember for sure. I never was much of a hand at google…again, my thanks. I have no idea how credible that story was btw…in retrosect probably not very. It had been rather a long time since I saw the cite in a thread, and I couldn’t remember if it had been debunked or not.

-XT

[Eve]

@Bricker

Of course, when Roe v. Wade was being shoved down the throats of the American public, and all of the unborn babies were marginalized, as well as those who believed that killing them was wrong, I don’t recall much concern from your side.

Maybe because there is no such thing as an “unborn baby?”

[John_Mace]

@annaplurabelle

I found the German “tin foil” one too. Here’s a link to a blog that posted it, since the original link is broken now:

I really don’t see the usefullness of a poll that asks the question whether the US government ***MAY ***have sponsored the 9/11 attacks. If I were being completely logical and objective, I would’ve answered “yes”, too.

[Arwin]

@John Mace

I really don’t see the usefullness of a poll that asks the question whether the US government ***MAY ***have sponsored the 9/11 attacks. If I were being completely logical and objective, I would’ve answered “yes”, too.

That’s “Die Zeit” for you. They generally like to write controversial stuff, but when you take one of its articles seriously in the presence of a German, you’ll get laughed at.

[elucidator]

Germans laugh? Who knew?

[Bricker]

@Eve

Maybe because there is no such thing as an “unborn baby?”

Sez you. I say that there is such a thing. If one of us is to be marginalized on the issue, I prefer it be you.

[Arwin]

@Bricker

Sez you. I say that there is such a thing. If one of us is to be marginalized on the issue, I prefer it be you.

It’s always nice to hear people put half formed embryos before fully grown adult women (or nearly adult women). Great to hear someone call all life sacred at the cost of everything, and support, say, a war in Iraq. Wonderful to see people want to decide about life without fully understanding what it is, or worse, believing they think they know what it is. Because all in all, irony is great.

That’s literally it, isn’t it? Someone like Bricker saying "if I had to choose between an embryo that hasn’t even distinguished itself from the embryo of any kind of other mammal out there, and the next year in the life of a fully grown women and all the emotional stress of bringing a child into the world when you’re not ready for it and then having to bear the mental burden of having a child out there of your own, being forced to decide between raising it yourself with all the consequences, or giving the child up, with not much fewer consequences.

Frankly, you disgust me. And I’m a man.

[Bricker]

@Arwin

It’s always nice to hear people put half formed embryos before fully grown adult women (or nearly adult women). Great to hear someone call all life sacred at the cost of everything, and support, say, a war in Iraq. Wonderful to see people want to decide about life without fully understanding what it is, or worse, believing they think they know what it is. Because all in all, irony is great.

That’s literally it, isn’t it? Someone like Bricker saying "if I had to choose between an embryo that hasn’t even distinguished itself from the embryo of any kind of other mammal out there, and the next year in the life of a fully grown women and all the emotional stress of bringing a child into the world when you’re not ready for it and then having to bear the mental burden of having a child out there of your own, being forced to decide between raising it yourself with all the consequences, or giving the child up, with not much fewer consequences.

Frankly, you disgust me. And I’m a man.

What you call “half-formed embryos” I call a child. And I weigh the life of a child against “all the emotional stress of bringing a child into the world when you’re not ready for it” and I decide in favor of the child’s living instead of being killed.

So do you. You just don’t agree with me on when the child enters the picture. You don’t support the right of a mother to kill her newborn infant to avoid “the mental burden of having a child out there of your own.”

The only difference between your view and mine is that you are convinced that the unborn baby is not a real baby. I am convinced that he or she is.

You don’t disgust me. You have reasons for your belief, and you hold your views in good faith. I just believe you’re mistaken. Unfortunately for the unborn, your mistake is fatal for them.

I am happy if this is changing in this country.

[BrainGlutton]

@Torgo

*Our “agenda” was once one of civic duty, service, responsibility. That gave way to the ACLU’s obsession with erasing religion from our history (Los Angeles county seal), the Democrats’ obsession with keeping partial birth abortion legal and a preoccupation with our rights. “My rights! My rights!” Grow up.

I could go on. Admitting there’s a problem is the first step.

Again: our history is one of civic duty, service, responsibility. We treat our opponents with grace and respect and leave the low road to them. We look out for each other, even if it means higher taxes. We hold dear both the secular and religious qualities of our society, and show contempt for neither. These are our values. If we can get back to that, liberal won’t be a synonym for shrieking whiner anymore.

Now wait a minute, it’s not that simple. The terms “progressive” and “liberal”, as used in American political discourse from the Roosevelt period to the present, mean a lot of different things, not all of them in accord with what you’re describing as “our values.”

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States:

Usage of the word Liberal

In the United States, the common meaning of “liberal” has evolved over time. In the 19th century it denoted classical liberalism. After World War II, it came to refer to left-of center (but anti-socialist and anti-communist) new liberalism. As McCarthyism and the reaction to Communism made the use of most left-wing political terms (including “socialism” and “social democracy”) anathema in the U.S., the former New Dealers and others to the left of center adopted the name “liberal”.

To distinguish themselves from these, those in the U.S. who were closer to classical liberalism adopted the name “libertarian”, a political stance closer to modern conservatism than to modern liberalism. Since approximately the Reagan era, the word “liberal” has been so much used as a derogatory term by U.S. conservatives that much of the left now adopts the term “progressives”.

<snip>

Some positions associated with contemporary U.S. liberalism

In the early 21st century, the term “liberalism” in the United States has become somewhat confused, applied to a broad spectrum of viewpoints. As the Democratic Party, generally seen as the standard-bearer of liberalism, adopted the more centrist outlook of the DLC, the term “liberal” (applied to the party as a whole) became associated even with more centrist candidates and issues who, for example, support the death penalty or take pro-business positions. For this reason, and because many on the farther right have so heavily used “liberal” as a pejorative, many Americans on the left of the political spectrum prefer to use the term progressive to describe their views, disassociating themselves from what they see as an increasingly conservative politics that still holds the name of liberalism.

Some Americans define liberals as those who support the use of government power to promote equality, but generally not to promote order. U.S. liberals also are more likely to openly support the legitimacy of government social intervention than are conservatives.

The following views could be considered typical of American liberalism today:

Support for government social programs such as welfare, medical care, unemployment benefits, and retirement programs.

Support for public education.

Support for trade unions - right of labor to organize.

Regulation of business - OSHA, child labor, monopolistic practicies, etc.

Support for civil rights (examples):

 Oppose discrimination based on gender, race, age, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.

 Support rights of women and minorities, particularly racial and religious minorities, the disabled, and homosexuals.

 Some further support such programs as affirmative action and multi-lingual education.

 Support broad voting rights.

 Support for abortion rights.

Support for strong environmental regulations.

Support for public transit.

Support minimum wage requirements.

Support for government funding to alternative energy research.

Opposition to the death penalty.

Some further support for animal rights - as an issue of ethical human behavior.

Support for gun controls.

Contemporary use of the term as a pejorative

As discussed above, the most common contemporary U.S. use of the term liberal is somewhat at variance from the use of the term in the rest of the world, and with the historical meaning of the word in the U.S. through the mid-20th century (new liberalism versus classical liberalism). (See Liberalism and Liberalism in countries for discussion of these issues of usage).

The term liberal is sometimes used as derogatory or politically undermining label by those on the more conservative end of the political spectrum. It can imply an overly free-spirited, unaccountable, and compromised character (a libertine), or someone in favor of vast and needless government intrusion into peoples lives (see Big government).

U.S. conservatives in recent years, often those of the Republican Party, sometimes use liberal as a subversive adjective for anyone who is a member of or supports any policy of the Democratic Party.

Some think that conservatives have been successful in undermining progressives as “liberals”, by deliberate public relations campaigns, and through repeated use of the word in ways that associate it with irresponsibility. (See, for example, Limousine liberal; another commonly-used phrase is tax-and-spend liberal.) Republican talk radio personality Rush Limbaugh is often credited with the perpetuation of these phrases. (See also Politicized issues, propaganda).

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism:

Beliefs

The basic Progressive vision is of community as a caring, responsible family. Progressives envision a community where people care about each other, not just themselves, and act responsibly with strength and effectiveness for each other. The basic principles of Progressivism are:

Equity
What citizens and nations owe each other. If you work hard; play by the rules; and serve your family, community, and nation, then the nation should provide a decent standard of living, as well as freedom, security, and opportunity.

Equality
Do everything possible to guarantee political equality and avoid imbalances of political power.

Democracy
Maximize citizen participation; minimize concentrations of political, corporate, and media power. Maximize journalistic standards. Establish publicly financed elections, Invest in public education. Bring corporations under stakeholder control, not just stockholder control.

Government for a Better Future
Government does what the future requires and what the private sector cannot do or is not doing effectively, ethically, or at all. It is the job of government to promote and, if possible, provide sufficient protection, greater democracy, more freedom, a better environment, broader prosperity, better health, greater fulfillment in life, less violence, and the building and maintaining of public infrastructure.

Ethical Business
In the course of making money by providing products and services, businesses should not adversely affect the public good, as defined by the above values.

Values-based Foreign Policy
The same values governing domestic policy should apply to foreign policy whenever possible.

[BrainGlutton]

@edwino

Throw away the term progressive as a descriptor of leftist politics.

Errmmm . . . why? Nothing else in your post explains what is wrong with the term “progressive” as a descriptor of leftist politics.

@edwino

You can also throw away liberal, conservative, left, and right, when used to describe party politics. Be accurate. Use Democrat and Republican, because both sides have progressive and conservative planks.

That makes more sense, but it’s irrelevant to this thread.

[Kel_Varnsen_Latex_Division]

@alaricthegoth

Mr. Rove hasn’t been happy with O’Reilly since he used the phone at Bill’s desk and came away with astroglide all over his hand…

I thought he was angry about the less slick substance that ended up on his ear.

[edwino]

@BrainGlutton

Errmmm . . . why? Nothing else in your post explains what is wrong with the term “progressive” as a descriptor of leftist politics.

It depends on how you define it. I’m no political scientist – I cannot tell you what the original meaning of being progressive is. If it is taken as a dictionary definition and applied towards government, then it means something close to “extending government to places where it has not been before” or “using government as a tool for societal betterment.”

Your definition of liberal doesn’t particularly have anything to do with liberty – it seems to be a description of the Democratic Party platform. How does support for gun control and increased regulation of business increase liberty? I can of course justify these if pressed (being a Democrat), but the direct effects of these laws would be to reduce liberty. Likewise is the definition of progressive – it just seems to be a definition of a centrist Democrat.

Let’s go back to the original meaning of these words. The OP asked for better “weasel words.” Well, we have two perfectly good terms – Democrat and Republican. Republicans are currently extremely progressive in terms of foreign policy. The most “conservative” Republicans out there are advocating use of our foreign policy for democratic revolution. And the Democrats have become deficit hawks and the voice of scaling back government.

It just seems pointless.