|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 3, 2010 21:43:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Dec 3, 2010 21:50:01 GMT -8
Well. Is liberalism itself under fire or has the right demonized the label so much that people do not use it?
I would suggest that if you ask people about their views on an issue by issue basis and clarify where they stand, the figures might diverge, from this writer's unusual take. That said, the Wall Street Journal editorial page has a quite clear bias. It is difficult for me to read their editorials, but I do so to stay informed.
I, in rebuttal, think demographics are going to affect conservatives in a negative way, but we shall see.
If that is too inflammatory, feel free to ban me. There are few enough Aztec fans like me as it is though.
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Dec 3, 2010 22:09:55 GMT -8
As a political movement liberalism is dead. They do not have the numbers They'll always have the numbers: the people who "depend" on welfare are born faster in much higher numbers than are those who don't. There's a very offensive LBJ quote that addresses this issue. To summarize without the bigoted reference, the beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act will be Democrats for a long, long time. And he was right. Interesting that you feel that way about your own fellow citizens. And yet conservatives complain that the most talented of Americans are arrogantly liberal. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Dec 3, 2010 22:38:38 GMT -8
Two years ago the topic was the death of conservatism. Things go around and around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Dec 4, 2010 5:27:02 GMT -8
If liberalism is dead, then why didn't the Republicans sweep all 435 house races?
You have lots of extremists on the left and lots more on the right. At the end of the day, it is all a battle for the hearts and minds (and votes!) of the middle. Power shifts one direction or the other based on who is able to capture the middle 20% to 25% of the voters.
Yoda out...
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Dec 4, 2010 7:32:49 GMT -8
If liberalism is dead, then why didn't the Republicans sweep all 435 house races? You have lots of extremists on the left and lots more on the right. At the end of the day, it is all a battle for the hearts and minds (and votes!) of the middle. Power shifts one direction or the other based on who is able to capture the middle 20% to 25% of the voters. Yoda out... That's a fair statement, but the labels don't really describe who we are. The labels are so used and worn and vilified and pilloried that they carry too much baggage. Some people like identifying with the baggage laden labels, many do not. We use the labels on this board as a convenient tool for bifurcating ourselves into groups to ignite debate. And debate we do! In order to find out who we really are you have to ask specific questions about what we believe. The most recent example of this is the Tea Partier who says reduce the government, but don't you dare touch my Social Security. They profess to believe one thing, but when you press them, they contradict themselves. Conservatives say that the United States is a center right country. If you asked Eric Cantor or John Boehner why they think that way they would not be able to give you a sensible, well researched answer because they do not know. They would say that such and such many people call themselves conservative so that tilts the whole equation to the right. And yet Republicans, labeled as conservative, usually have less representation in government than Democrats. I think the labels get in the way and most pollsters don't bother to go beyond the easy definition. The people in the middle are the same, but I would say that they eschew the labels and rail at the ineffectiveness of the current parties. They pick and choose where they stand based on the issue of immediate concern to them. There will always be people who are conservative. There will always be people who, in contrast to the conservatives, are liberal. The whole definition of conservative and liberal is movable and I would suggest that today's conservative is both more liberal and more conservative than conservatives of other times. The same holds true for liberals. The writer has it wrong. And just because he wrote something on the Wall Street Journal does not mean he knows what he is talking about. I would say that the Journal seeks like minded writers for its editorial page, because it has an agenda that is more important to them than the facts. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Dec 4, 2010 7:47:39 GMT -8
Here's the thing - the last two times that outright Liberalism (with a capital L) was followed the sitting President saw his Democratic majority lost. Bill Clinton was a far left President for the first two years of his administration and the American public showed their displeasure at the ballot box. (The recession had ended by '94, so you can't say it was the economy.)
The same happened with Barack Obama. He went even farther to the left and the American public showed their displeasure with the Democrat party's Liberal agenda and overreaching and gave the Republicans one of the biggest victories in the House in history.
It's pretty clear that most Americans do not want their government to go very far to the left. We don't know how they feel about going too far to the right since Republicans stopped being the least bit fiscally conservative after 1998.
Going to war to attack enemies of your country is neither left nor right, so that isn't a Conservative/Liberal issue either. (Self defense, proactive or not, is self defense. Many democrats have gotten the U.S. involved in wars, so, again, that isn't really a Left/Right issue.
But it is clear that adopting far reaching Liberal policies does not make a majority of Americans happy. They don't want Liberalism. True Liberals are a small minority in this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 4, 2010 7:53:19 GMT -8
Well. Is liberalism itself under fire or has the right demonized the label so much that people do not use it? I would suggest that if you ask people about their views on an issue by issue basis and clarify where they stand, the figures might diverge, from this writer's unusual take. That said, the Wall Street Journal editorial page has a quite clear bias. It is difficult for me to read their editorials, but I do so to stay informed. I, in rebuttal, think demographics are going to affect conservatives in a negative way, but we shall see. If that is too inflammatory, feel free to ban me. There are few enough Aztec fans like me as it is though. You are very correct when you say that "liberalism" is under fire when even they call themselves something else. The new term "progressive" is thin camouflage and fools nobody. As you say, many people have compassion and an understanding of the needs that many folks have but differ in how to meet those needs. An increasing number of folks in the middle are siding with the Conservative way of righting the economy and getting people back to work by setting the stage for government to step aside and let our market dynamics go to work unfettered by onerous taxes and regulation. Your reference to demographics being a threat to Conservative principles is true until what ever demographic your think is unable to pull itself up does show you wrong and emerge as a hardworking contributor to a vibrant economy. There will always be some who see themselves as generational bogged down in a existence dependent on handouts. That can shrink, but never go away. There is just to big of an industry based on keeping folks beholden. The Sharpton's and Jesse Jacksons of the world scheme to keep people down so they can pretend to be an advocate. I don't think for a second that William was making any kind of threat of banishment. I think he just wants a civil exchange of ideas. It is not just your kind of Aztec that is in short supply, but Aztec fans of any kind. I don't even know what kind you are talking about since I consider myself the same kind of fan that you are. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 4, 2010 7:56:38 GMT -8
As a political movement liberalism is dead. They do not have the numbers They'll always have the numbers: the people who "depend" on welfare are born faster in much higher numbers than are those who don't. There's a very offensive LBJ quote that addresses this issue. To summarize without the bigoted reference, the beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act will be Democrats for a long, long time. And he was right. I think that demographic that is helplessly dependent can shrink. It will take a smaller government and a more efficient private "safety net" that has freedom from that bondage as a goal and not the liberal idea of having a permanent voting base kept down by design. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Dec 4, 2010 7:58:21 GMT -8
Well. Is liberalism itself under fire or has the right demonized the label so much that people do not use it? I would suggest that if you ask people about their views on an issue by issue basis and clarify where they stand, the figures might diverge, from this writer's unusual take. That said, the Wall Street Journal editorial page has a quite clear bias. It is difficult for me to read their editorials, but I do so to stay informed. I, in rebuttal, think demographics are going to affect conservatives in a negative way, but we shall see. If that is too inflammatory, feel free to ban me. There are few enough Aztec fans like me as it is though. You are very correct when you say that "liberalism" is under fire when even they call themselves something else. The new term "progressive" is thin camouflage and fools nobody. As you say, many people have compassion and an understanding of the needs that many folks have but differ in how to meet those needs. An increasing number of folks in the middle are siding with the Conservative way of righting the economy and getting people back to work by setting the stage for government to step aside and let our market dynamics go to work unfettered by onerous taxes and regulation. Your reference to demographics being a threat to Conservative principles is true until what ever demographic your think is unable to pull itself up does show you wrong and emerge as a hardworking contributor to a vibrant economy. There will always be some who see themselves as generational bogged down in a existence dependent on handouts. That can shrink, but never go away. There is just to big of an industry based on keeping folks beholden. The Sharpton's and Jesse Jacksons of the world scheme to keep people down so they can pretend to be an advocate. I don't think for a second that William was making any kind of threat of banishment. I think he just wants a civil exchange of ideas. It is not just your kind of Aztec that is in short supply, but Aztec fans of any kind. I don't even know what kind you are talking about since I consider myself the same kind of fan that you are. The caution was placed on a post that was clearly conservative leaning. When the caution appears at the beginning of a post that espouses a liberal idea, I will feel better. I usually know what people really mean when they write something. If what you say is true there would be, as yoda said, many more conservatives representing us. Win, don't tell me what people say tell me what they do. Don't you think for a moment that conservatism is not under fire as well. You travel in your own circle. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 4, 2010 7:59:25 GMT -8
They'll always have the numbers: the people who "depend" on welfare are born faster in much higher numbers than are those who don't. There's a very offensive LBJ quote that addresses this issue. To summarize without the bigoted reference, the beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act will be Democrats for a long, long time. And he was right. Interesting that you feel that way about your own fellow citizens. And yet conservatives complain that the most talented of Americans are arrogantly liberal. I do not think that your statement is true as either a sentiment or a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 4, 2010 8:01:32 GMT -8
Two years ago the topic was the death of conservatism. Things go around and around. That may have been a topic in some circles, but the fact that Conservatives have outnumbered liberals for years remains. It is when independent voters break in large number for the Democrats that they win elections. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 4, 2010 8:02:47 GMT -8
If liberalism is dead, then why didn't the Republicans sweep all 435 house races? You have lots of extremists on the left and lots more on the right. At the end of the day, it is all a battle for the hearts and minds (and votes!) of the middle. Power shifts one direction or the other based on who is able to capture the middle 20% to 25% of the voters. Yoda out... Correct except for the size of the middle. I think I hear the number 32% most often. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Dec 4, 2010 8:06:37 GMT -8
Interesting that you feel that way about your own fellow citizens. And yet conservatives complain that the most talented of Americans are arrogantly liberal. I do not think that your statement is true as either a sentiment or a fact. I know what I read and the post denigrates his fellow citizens. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Dec 4, 2010 8:08:08 GMT -8
As I have repeatedly informed the readers of this and past forums, every year Social Security adds about a third of a million low IQ teenagers to its benefits list. That is right, teenagers are drawing Social Security benefits as soon as they reach the age of emancipation if they are deemed mentally deficient enough to not be able to hold on to a job. Ninety percent of them come from the ranks of those people that LBJ was so happy would be voting Democratic for quite some time to come.
Ironically, the legislation that allowed for this new program with SS was strongly supported by Republicans because they would be getting the Welfare mothers off of Welfare and could claim same to their constituents. Those representatives of the Democratic Party went with the flow of the Republicans because one way or another it was benefiting the public good.
Yep, for political posturing purposes (P to the third power) they took about eighty percent of the welfare mothers off of welfare and put them on Social Security, where they are free to breed five and six kids each on average who are equally as dumb as the mother.
We are dramatically dumbing down the average IQ of America while raising the prison population with each successive generation. Since the retards in the inner cities start actively breeding at age 13 or 14, the load on Social Security will be tremendous in ten more years.
I have long proposed that we sterilize all of the young who are that dumb before they are allowed to draw benefits. At least that way we would cut their exponential birth rate in half to about three per welfare (SS) mother. (An average of three kids before they turn 18.)
It would probably be better to sterilize all retards with IQ's below 120.
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Dec 4, 2010 8:08:37 GMT -8
the Democrat party's Liberal agenda I tend to lean a little more to the right than the left---and therefore I agree with you a little more often than I do with waztec---but I KNOW YOU'RE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW that it's the Democratic party. Not the Democrat party. Don't get into the insidious insult thing. It's the kind of thing Limbaugh does and you're better than that. You will not change his mind. You will not cause him to acknowledge any contention. Give it up. See his later post. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Dec 4, 2010 8:12:32 GMT -8
As I have repeatedly informed the readers of this and past forums, every year Social Security adds about a third of a million low IQ teenagers to its benefits list. That is right, teenagers are drawing Social Security benefits as soon as they reach the age of emancipation if they are deemed mentally deficient enough to not be able to hold on to a job. Ninety percent of them come from the ranks of those people who LBJ was so happy that they would be voting Democratic. Ironically, the legislation that allowed for this new program with SS was strongly supported by Republicans because they would be getting the Welfare mothers off of Welfare. Yep, for political posturing purposes (P to the third power) they took about eighty percent of the welfare mothers off of welfare and put them on Social Security, where they are free to breed five and six kids each on average who are equally as dumb as the mother. We are dramatically dumbing down the average IQ of America while raising the prison population with each successive generation. Since the retards in the inner cities start actively breeding at age 13 or 14, the load on Social Security will be tremendous in ten more years. I have long proposed that we sterilize all of the young who are that dumb before they are allowed to draw benefits. At least that way we would cut their exponential birth rate in half to about three per welfare (SS) mother. (An average of three kids before they turn 18.) It would probably be better to sterilize all retards with IQ's below 120. That post is as much a rhetorical and hyperbolic shot to Mars as I have ever read! You have the potential to become a good satirist. You are just too funny. I love the way you poke fun at the debate by magnifying the positions taken to the absurd. I salute you.  |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Dec 4, 2010 8:15:25 GMT -8
Interesting that you feel that way about your own fellow citizens. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "feelings." The numbers bear out what LBJ said. You said you agreed. Why live in this country if the citizens are worthless? |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Dec 4, 2010 8:16:55 GMT -8
Two years ago the topic was the death of conservatism. Things go around and around. That may have been a topic in some circles, but the fact that Conservatives have outnumbered liberals for years remains. It is when independent voters break in large number for the Democrats that they win elections. As defined by you, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 4, 2010 8:18:50 GMT -8
As I have repeatedly informed the readers of this and past forums, every year Social Security adds about a third of a million low IQ teenagers to its benefits list. That is right, teenagers are drawing Social Security benefits as soon as they reach the age of emancipation if they are deemed mentally deficient enough to not be able to hold on to a job. Ninety percent of them come from the ranks of those people who LBJ was so happy that they would be voting Democratic. Ironically, the legislation that allowed for this new program with SS was strongly supported by Republicans because they would be getting the Welfare mothers off of Welfare. Yep, for political posturing purposes (P to the third power) they took about eighty percent of the welfare mothers off of welfare and put them on Social Security, where they are free to breed five and six kids each on average who are equally as dumb as the mother. We are dramatically dumbing down the average IQ of America while raising the prison population with each successive generation. Since the retards in the inner cities start actively breeding at age 13 or 14, the load on Social Security will be tremendous in ten more years. I have long proposed that we sterilize all of the young who are that dumb before they are allowed to draw benefits. At least that way we would cut their exponential birth rate in half to about three per welfare (SS) mother. (An average of three kids before they turn 18.) It would probably be better to sterilize all retards with IQ's below 120. That post is as much a rhetorical and hyperbolic shot to Mars as I have ever read! You have the potential to become a good satirist. You are just too funny. I love the way you poke fun at the debate by magnifying the positions taken to the absurd. I salute you. We are all enriched by the contributions of Joe. Just don't tell him. |
|
