How Modern Liberals Think

prytoj

As Cali native indoctrinated into the liberal ideaology, and myself a former liberal, I found the argument to be pretty concise.

Monday, March 5, 2007 Featuring: Evan Sayet Writer, Lecturer and Pundit Hosted by: Becky Norton Dunlop Vice President, External Relations, The Heritage Foundation


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c&feature=related

Piper At The Gates

Oh , The Heritage Foundation, aren't they the John Birch Society with Ivy League degrees and expensive clothes?

prytoj

Piper At The Gates wrote:

Oh , The Heritage Foundation, aren't they the John Birch Society with Ivy League degrees and expensive clothes?

solidifying the argument made by the speaker...

Piper At The Gates

All it shows me is that Joe McCarthy and his views and tactics are still alive and well in America and being propagated by people like this Sayet guy, and I do stand corrected, he is wearing a cheap suit.

prytoj

Piper At The Gates wrote:

All it shows me is that Joe McCarthy and his views and tactics are still alive and well in America and being propagated by people like this Sayet guy, and I do stand corrected, he is wearing a cheap suit.

huh? I love when folks say a bunch of big words without actually knowing what they mean, or even why they are saying them. Dropping McCarthy bombs on conservative views even further solidifes the argument made by the speaker...you're the gift that keeps on giving, and I thank you.

Collin

America is the least imperialistic power in human history? Seriously?

I cannot take this guy seriously, I can't. He has one of the most closed views I've witnessed. First of all, his brilliant deduction sucks, his friends don't hate America. Simple as that. They disagree or even hate policies and certain politics.

Second of all, he's not objective. That's actually the main problem. A "modern liberal" sees that it's not black and white, he seems to miss that ability. (Granted, I'm only at 15 minutes, but so far it's only bullshit.)

There is most definitely a reason the US was attacked. His friends aren't saying American deserves it and they're not justifying the actions of the terrorists either. They are saying US involvement in the Middle East - imperialism - has caused resentment towards the States. It's not an attack out of the blue, it has a reason and to deny that reason, to pretend it doesn't exist is stupid and dangerous.

He's speaking like a dictator for fuck's sake. He's mad that an artist put a cross in a jar of piss, he's pissed off because Brokeback Mountain showed that homosexuals are people as well (he's actually says: 'go be a homosexual if you choose"). He doesn't like it when someone shows the reality of things, that terrorists are people - not monsters - people with reasons for their actions. They are not inherently evil, born evil with hatred of the US. There's more to it, pointing that out is 'completely wrong' according to him.

He's basically saying - again so far - that criticism of the States is wrong. It's not okay to assess America's role in the States. It's not good to show the horrible mistakes it has made. This guy is holding on to the fantasy that America is the Greatest and Bestest country in the world, a beacon of light. Anything you say that proves that America, like any other country, has flaws is completely wrong.

Also, he painting a wrong picture. He's saying that the liberals thing that America is always and completely evil, filled with hatred, bigotry and does nothing good. Arundhati Roy said something that addresses this view in her speech 'Come September'

"Recently, those who have criticized the actions of the U.S. government (myself included) have been called "anti-American." Anti-Americanism is in the process of being consecrated into an ideology.

The term "anti-American" is usually used by the American establishment to discredit and, not falsely - but shall we say inaccurately - define its critics. Once someone is branded anti-American, the chances are that he or she will be judged before they are heard, and the argument will be lost in the welter of bruised national pride.

But what does the term "anti-American" mean? Does it mean you are anti-jazz? Or that you're opposed to freedom of speech? That you don't delight in Toni Morrison or John Updike? That you have a quarrel with giant sequoias? Does it mean that you don't admire the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who marched against nuclear weapons, or the thousands of war resisters who forced their government to withdraw from Vietnam? Does it mean that you hate all Americans?"

Piper At The Gates

prytoj wrote:

huh? I love when folks say a bunch of big words without actually knowing what they mean, or even why they are saying them. Dropping McCarthy bombs on conservative views even further solidifes the argument made by the speaker...you're the gift that keeps on giving, and I thank you.

Gee, I didn't realize that I dumbfounded anyone with my lexicon.
I agree that Mr Sayet's argument solidifies, but that solidification has more to do with digestion than discourse. Joe McCarthy is the gift that keeps on giving. He has given the right wing 50 years of strategy to use against true Americans.
What bothers me most about these Heritage Foundation flunkies is that their prejudice is borne of privilege, and nothing but a jealousy of anyone getting ahead but the old guard.

Collin

He says that liberals think that 'the only way to eliminate bigotry is to eliminate rational thought.'

I think people teach the opposite. The only way to eliminate bigotry is by pursuing rational thought.

It is irrational to think that America's involvement in the Middle East, the slaughter of thousands of people, the continual support to the terrorist state Israel... didn't have any influence on the terrorist who flew into those buildings on 9/11.

It is irrational to think that because people hate the foreign policy that they therefore hate their country.

It is, however, very rational to consider your own history and other people's history when you look for a solution to a conflict or an explanation for an action.

It's rational to see your own mistakes, speak out against them and try to improve them.

His example (airport with the little old lady and the imams screaming Allāhu Akbar) is absurd and again pure bullshit.

Collin

OK, I'm sorry. I have totally wasted my time with this. This guy makes no sense whatsoever. His world view is extremely black and white. He uses absurd and ridiculous examples. He fails to see reality.

prytoj

Collin wrote:

America is the least imperialistic power in human history? Seriously?

Show me the world's previous dominant power that was less imperialistic

Collin wrote:

his friends don't hate America. Simple as that. They disagree or even hate policies and certain politics.

The liberal agenda does hate America, and if you fact check the liberal mouthpieces, you will find what is really sinister about the modern liberal agenda. They lie, stating the opposite of fact as fact.

Collin wrote:

Second of all, he's not objective. That's actually the main problem. A "modern liberal" sees that it's not black and white, he seems to miss that ability. (Granted, I'm only at 15 minutes, but so far it's only bullshit.)

Collin wrote:

There is most definitely a reason the US was attacked. His friends aren't saying American deserves it and they're not justifying the actions of the terrorists either. They are saying US involvement in the Middle East - imperialism - has caused resentment towards the States. It's not an attack out of the blue, it has a reason and to deny that reason, to pretend it doesn't exist is stupid and dangerous.

The reason we were attacked, from what I can see, is an Arab fascism driven to see a world Muslim theocracy, a new dark ages. the rest of this quoite is not worth responding to, only to say that it's pretty "black and white," short-sighted, and awefully ignorant of the historical record. I'll entertain that "western influence" pisses off some ignorant terrorist monsters (which is pretty much bullshit too, it's more of an excuse), but that's not the debate we're having here.

Collin wrote:

He doesn't like it when someone shows the reality of things, that terrorists are people - not monsters - people with reasons for their actions. They are not inherently evil, born evil with hatred of the US. There's more to it.

Ehhh, one man;s terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, eh? proving the point of the speaker again, and again woefully lacking in historical context.

Collin wrote:

He's basically saying - again so far - that criticism of the States is wrong. It's not okay to assess America's role in the States. It's not good to show the horrible mistakes it has made. This guy is holding on to the fantasy that America is the Greatest and Bestest country in the world, a beacon of light. Anything you say that proves that America, like any other country, has flaws is completely wrong.

He's not coming even close to saying that. your statement here (and the rest of your post, is a close-minded liberal projection disguised as an intellectual response. Furthermore, lots of conservatives, including this one, have been plenty critical of US policies. SO that spin is rediculous, and a lie.

I think the speaker's point is that the liberal agenda itself is inherently evil, and carefully packaged and promoted as innocuous and "nice". The packaging is designed to be pleasing to the eye of the non-intellectual liberal, so they won't question the modern liberal agenda. That if you are not a modern liberal, you must be a neanderthal racist unenlightened being. I found his argument to be absolutely right on the money, if a little TOO nice about it. The modern liberalist intellectuals lie out their ass, bold faced lies, in order to pursue a globalist agenda. but whatever.

Collin

prytoj wrote:

Show me the world's previous dominant power that was less imperialistic

The US is a very strong imperialistic power, it's right up their with the others.

I think the speaker's point is that the liberal agenda itself is inherently evil, and carefully packaged and promoted as innocuous and "nice". The packaging is designed to be pleasing to the eye of the non-intellectual liberal, so they won't question the modern liberal agenda. That if you are not a modern liberal, you must be a neanderthal racist unenlightened being. I found his argument to be absolutely right on the money, if a little TOO nice about it. The modern liberalist intellectuals lie out their ass, bold faced lies, in order to pursue a globalist agenda. but whatever.

I've had to endure this guy's bullshit speech, please listen to this. You can tell me how she's lying out of her ass. Tell me how she is stating the opposite as fact.

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=CAoIwJKfExA
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=J235p3vv7-A&feature=related
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=LPo1TZfa5oA&feature=related
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=tCxx6NfIYqA&feature=related
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=YjFgar7ZoaU&feature=related

Also, "The liberal agenda does hate America" please comment on this:

"Recently, those who have criticized the actions of the U.S. government (myself included) have been called "anti-American." Anti-Americanism is in the process of being consecrated into an ideology.

The term "anti-American" is usually used by the American establishment to discredit and, not falsely - but shall we say inaccurately - define its critics. Once someone is branded anti-American, the chances are that he or she will be judged before they are heard, and the argument will be lost in the welter of bruised national pride.

But what does the term "anti-American" mean? Does it mean you are anti-jazz? Or that you're opposed to freedom of speech? That you don't delight in Toni Morrison or John Updike? That you have a quarrel with giant sequoias? Does it mean that you don't admire the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who marched against nuclear weapons, or the thousands of war resisters who forced their government to withdraw from Vietnam? Does it mean that you hate all Americans?"

Collin

prytoj wrote:

The reason we were attacked, from what I can see, is an Arab fascism driven to see a world Muslim theocracy, a new dark ages. the rest of this quoite is not worth responding to, only to say that it's pretty "black and white," short-sighted, and awefully ignorant of the historical record. I'll entertain that "western influence" pisses off some ignorant terrorist monsters (which is pretty much bullshit too, it's more of an excuse), but that's not the debate we're having here.

Osama has stated that he attacked the US because of the injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States. Straight from the monster's mouth.

It wasn't the liberals who lied and said it was because they hate your freedom in order to popularise war.

Mutiny! he cried

prytoj wrote:

Show me the world's previous dominant power that was less imperialistic

The liberal agenda does hate America, and if you fact check the liberal mouthpieces, you will find what is really sinister about the modern liberal agenda. They lie, stating the opposite of fact as fact.


The reason we were attacked, from what I can see, is an Arab fascism driven to see a world Muslim theocracy, a new dark ages. the rest of this quoite is not worth responding to, only to say that it's pretty "black and white," short-sighted, and awefully ignorant of the historical record. I'll entertain that "western influence" pisses off some ignorant terrorist monsters (which is pretty much bullshit too, it's more of an excuse), but that's not the debate we're having here.

Ehhh, one man;s terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, eh? proving the point of the speaker again, and again woefully lacking in historical context.

He's not coming even close to saying that. your statement here (and the rest of your post, is a close-minded liberal projection disguised as an intellectual response. Furthermore, lots of conservatives, including this one, have been plenty critical of US policies. SO that spin is rediculous, and a lie.

I think the speaker's point is that the liberal agenda itself is inherently evil, and carefully packaged and promoted as innocuous and "nice". The packaging is designed to be pleasing to the eye of the non-intellectual liberal, so they won't question the modern liberal agenda. That if you are not a modern liberal, you must be a neanderthal racist unenlightened being. I found his argument to be absolutely right on the money, if a little TOO nice about it. The modern liberalist intellectuals lie out their ass, bold faced lies, in order to pursue a globalist agenda. but whatever.

right, the 'modern liberal' is an evil liar, got it :rolleyes:

"one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" i dunno, ask the semi-modern conservative who violated US law and the congress by arming, funding and supporting terrorists which they called freedom fighters (who happened to target civilians)

or you could easil say:
'one man's 9/11 victim is another man's collateral damage'


regardless, calling the other side 'evil' and all these other things gets you nowhere but further polarizing sections. you should work from base of understanding rather than demonizing.

and I would agree with the othjer poster, demonizing the opposition in this way is certainly McCarthyism or at the very least McCarthyesque

can YOU show a former superpower that was more imperialistic?

prytoj

The roman empire, the british empire, the ottoman empire, nazi germany..
just to name a few, there, MUtiny! All far more imperialistic than the US, if we're ranking superpowers. I could go on, but you can crack a book yourself.

As far as this "wisdom" piece, it's kind of a wanderiing piece that I'm not sure argues the point of the Heritage speaker per se. I could dissect it, but I'll leave it to the comments on the pages of the video.

The Heritage speaker proposes a concise argument, I'm not sure how the "wisom" piece rebuts that argument.

prytoj

Collin wrote:

Osama has stated that he attacked the US because of the injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States. Straight from the monster's mouth.

It wasn't the liberals who lied and said it was because they hate your freedom in order to popularise war.

Bin Laden declared WAR ON US from Afghanistan, protected by the Taliban, who was about as injust and oppressive a regime as there was. Total hypocrisy, and again, an excuse to promote a theocratic agenda.

Nice try, but what a bunch of intellectual dishonesty. Surpising the Islamo-fascists don't criticize Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, others in the region regarding "injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians". Wonder why?

Mutiny! he cried

prytoj wrote:

The roman empire, the british empire, the ottoman empire, nazi germany..
just to name a few, there, MUtiny! All far more imperialistic than the US, if we're ranking superpowers. I could go on, but you can crack a book yourself.

As far as this "wisdom" piece, it's kind of a wanderiing piece that I'm not sure argues the point of the Heritage speaker per se. I could dissect it, but I'll leave it to the comments on the pages of the video.

The Heritage speaker proposes a concise argument, I'm not sure how the "wisom" piece rebuts that argument.

.........riiiight. I'm just sayin maybe it would help an actual discussion if you spoke nicer and more respectfully to people instead of so hostile and aggressive, otherwise it comes off as you just want to be right and rub the other's face in how wrong you perceive they are.

But anyway, I have cracked open many books and it seemed to me the US was involved in faaaaar more countries than Britain, Rome.....

prytoj

Mutiny! he cried wrote:

.........riiiight. I'm just sayin maybe it would help an actual discussion if you spoke nicer and more respectfully to people instead of so hostile and aggressive, otherwise it comes off as you just want to be right and rub the other's face in how wrong you perceive they are.

But anyway, I have cracked open many books and it seemed to me the US was involved in faaaaar more countries than Britain, Rome.....

You're just saying you don't like the liberal agenda to be attacked, sucks for you. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but it is what it is. I wasn't disrespectful of anybody, I'm saying the liberal agenda is a bunch of crap. The post was a video on the modern liberal, and I don't respect the modern liberal agenda or those who support it.

and what's this "involved"? what does that have to do with imperialism or the relative imperialistic tendencies of one super-power or another? but keep grabbing for those straws...

OffHeGoes29

Mutiny! he cried wrote:

But anyway, I have cracked open many books and it seemed to me the US was involved in faaaaar more countries than Britain, Rome.....

Well you have to look at the technology for the time....Rome took over it's "known world" and the British empire had control of 3/4 of the Earth at one time....or was it 2/3s? I can't remember. They did it all by sailing ships..pretty impressive.

Mutiny! he cried

prytoj wrote:

You're just saying you don't like the liberal agenda to be attacked, sucks for you. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but it is what it is. I wasn't disrespectful of anybody, I'm saying the liberal agenda is a bunch of crap. The post was a video on the modern liberal, and I don't respect the modern liberal agenda or those who support it.

and what's this "involved"? what does that have to do with imperialism or the relative imperialistic tendencies of one super-power or another? but keep grabbing for those straws...

l
you and the guy in the video think 'the modern liberal' hating america and wanting to get rid of rational thought, I disagree, to each their own.

it's absolutist and that is ridiculous. also, as I said it seemms to just want to call liberals names and demonize them instead of engaging the other side in an actual discussion and seems to be more about your side being right and rubbing the other side's nose in it.

'involved' as in imperialistically involved.

Mutiny! he cried

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Well you have to look at the technology for the time....Rome took over it's "known world" and the British empire had control of 3/4 of the Earth at one time....or was it 2/3s? I can't remember. They did it all by sailing ships..pretty impressive.

and we do it w/ bombs, economics, sanctions, exploitation and supporting thugs.

and in more pl
aces

RolandTD20Kdrummer

prytoj wrote:

As Cali native indoctrinated into the liberal ideaology, and myself a former liberal, I found the argument to be pretty concise.

Monday, March 5, 2007 Featuring: Evan Sayet Writer, Lecturer and Pundit Hosted by: Becky Norton Dunlop Vice President, External Relations, The Heritage Foundation


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c&feature=related

I only watched the first 5 mins (time allowing)

This guy possesses a strong neo-con mindset, especially as he mentions David Frum as being one of his close friends.

People Speaking out against Bush's war on terror policies do not hate America. It's interesting how he tries to turn it around on people through.

The guy is Using 9/11 as an absolute to conclude all his thoughts forward from there. I think a lot of people fall into this trap.