So what defines the "liberal elite" so reviled by "middle America"? And, for that matter, what the hell does "middle America" mean? Neither seems to have any substantial correlation to the definitions of the words comprising the terms. But I can't really tell, since the people who use the phrases don't ever really define them, and thus never tell us how each word is redefined by its combination with another.
It would be useful to haev it explained. I mean I was reading just yesterday that most of the smut being peddled is being peddled not by liberals but by Republican party donating corporations: ""In this world of irony, corporate leaders at companies as diverse as News Corp., Marriott International and Time Warner can profit by selling red state consumers the very material that red state culture is supposed to despise. Those elites then funnel the proceeds to the GOP, which in turn has used the money to successfully convince red state voters that the other political party is solely responsible for the decline of the civilization. [. . .] It's almost impossible to get a handle on how much money corporate America is reaping by peddling smut. General Motors Corp. is not eager to brag about how many dirty movies it sold last year through a subsidiary. [. . .] On one hand, Fox News employs commentators who promote the connection between Republicans and family values while other divisions of the company profit from sexually explicit content."" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15644-2004Dec21.html
This almost reminds me of a question I posted on another thread asking why people who call themselves "liberals" are so intolerant of others who don't share their viewpoints. I was satisfied with the answer I got, which was to the effect that it's just a label. The label "liberal" has become such a button for people who use the label "conservative", that all you have to do is join it with the word "elite" and, to me at least, it conjures up images of Barbara Streisand crying about banning construction on our coastlines in order to preserve them, all the while hiding out in her who-knows-how-many-acre estate on the beach. It's the hypocrisy that tends to go hand-in-hand with some liberals who strike it big financially. They still run around expecting the rest of us to be happy in 60's era communes and eating wheat germ and soy cakes while they wine and dine with the rich and famous on filet mignon and caviar. Sure, we'll ride our bikes to local environment rallies, but when the celebrity guest shows up in a limousine or a Humvee (not exactly know for their gas mileage), it's kind of chutzpah, isn't it? If they can't show up in a way that isn't spewing pollution, maybe they shouldn't show up at all. Well, that's what I think of when I hear liberal elite. "Now that I've got money, here's how I want everybody to act, and I'm going to use all my money and ego to make sure you do. What? No, I don't have to act that way, but you guys do." I'm sure that train of thought tends to go with most positions of power whether liberal or conservative, but it sure looks a lot more disgusting when it spouts from the hearts and minds of people who claim to promote the acceptance of diversity as one of their key ideals.
Deriving from the context in which I've heard the terms: Liberal Elite: Those who beleive in income/resource redistribution and have strong influence in, or are the media. Middle America: A group of conservatives who are all god-fearing and whatnot. Fags and blacks annoy them I think - no geographical implication.
Let's get some definitions on the table, and a discussion thereof into motion. • • • • • • • • • (Note: Compared to the Wikipedia entry, the above citation is not so nearly substantial as it seems. Nonetheless, I both apologize for the length of citation, and insist upon its necessity.) • • • • • • • • • Much of what constitutes a dictionary definition or encyclopedic dissection of liberalism will be a surprise to many Americans both liberal and conservative. Nonetheless, even in the American political arena, the phrase "liberal elite" seems something of an oxymoron. As Wikipedia notes, the definition of liberalism in politics tends to vary according to one's own political sympathies. We can derive the justice of Oxygen's consideration of liberal celebrities who pretend power; stricter adherence comes in the absence of power. Of course, as the article notes, in political circles this is because of the necessity of compromise. In the case of Hollywood celebrity, that sense of power is as much a fiction as a Schwarzeneggar film, and thus construed to be unopposed, feels no obligation toward compromise. Problematic, of course, is the rhetorical extrapolation that holds such individuals to represent all of liberalism. Given conservative politicians' tendency to embrace the rantings of right-wing talk hosts, one would have an easier time extrapolating a predator like Bill O'Reilly or propagandist like Sean Hannity to represent all of conservatism in American political ideology. Remembering that the "conservative base" in American politics is composed of social-conservative evangelical Christians, one could more easily than the "Hollywood liberal" assignation put the label of Christian social conservatism across the breadth of American conservatism. And folks do, indeed, lay those labels thick like exterior flat. At best, the phrase "liberal elite" seems to be a classic conservative political equivocation: Looking at a negative characterization of conservative philosophy drawn from perceptions of facts and events, the conservative looks away from those facts and instead focuses on the value of the terminology derived. As social conservatives continually parrot that they don't hate, they overlook the idea that people find the policy advocated hateful. All that is important is the negative value of the description: hateful, restrictive, or even elitist. The conservative then makes up a term, hoping for impact according to the considerations of marketing. "Liberal elite" is a contradiction in terms inasmuch as "control, rule, or domination" by the principles of self-determination and social cooperation (e.g. an understanding of the relationship between the individual and society) is, in fact, what "free" societies allege to strive for. The problem then comes in the definitions of issues. People want what they want, and that's how it is. But if anybody can answer for me the question of how one's rights are violated if another's are not, I would be most appreciative. Because that seems, from this liberal's perspective, to be where the notion of the evil "liberal elite" derives. American conservatives often complain of "judicial activism", a complaint that overlooks the natural consequences of the interrelated principles of the U.S. Constitution. On the one hand, considering what two parts of the Constitution mean when enforced simultaneously is too much to ask of many conservative arguments. Remember that the Oregon gay fray of the 1990s came about because someone felt their First Amendment rights were violated because a specific book was not censored from the local library for failing to speak poorly of homosexuality. How can a person's First Amendment right be violated by the failure to strip another of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights? Colorado passed a measure similar to the one defeated in Oregon in 1992. The courts eviscerated it for its trampling of the Constitution. And up came the outcry against "judicial activism" that overrode the will of the people. And for the last twelve years, at least, we've heard the constant bemoaning from conservatives that adherence to the Constitution is a violation of the Constitution and of people's rights. That they have failed to prove their case in the courts is not the result of some liberal judicial conspiracy, but of the weakness of the conservative argument in that case. Unable to face up to this simple fact, the only answer is that a group of people have formed an elitist conspiracy based on the idea society is a cooperative endeavor in which we must figure how best to preserve the individual's rights, which form the basis of his ability to contribute to social progress. Conservatives want rights without bearing any responsibility. If we consider for a moment basic debates of religious ideas, we come across a similar notion. From time to time, atheists and other critics of any given religion will make the point that one has the right to do what they want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another. Liberalism recognizes both the rights and the limitations. For this liberals are called "elitists". Quite simply, insofar as conservatives have communicated, that liberalism argues that one's individual rights cannot naturally suspend another's indicates that liberals seek to stratify society and take away rights. Obviously, this contention makes no sense to me, in theory or reflection of facts. Hence the question of this topic. Because it seems quite odd to me that a platform traditionally arguing against equal protection under the law--e.g. American political conservatism--should be raising spectral fears of elitism. ____________________ Notes: American Heritage Dictionary. See http://dictionary.reference.com/ Wikipedia. "Liberalism". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
So does the problem stem from the liberals letting themselves be defined by outside groups. In other words, do they not present a strong enough "image"?
That is certainly a way of putting it. In fact, and without any intent of diminishing your expression of it, that may be the simplest way of explaining it. I might borrow from a recent criticism of the Democrats made in a letter to the editor of the Seattle Times: People seem to think that "compromise" means compromising the foundations of our sociopolitical institutions. The "all-or-nothing" attitude of the Democratic Party is pocket-change compared to the all-or-nothing attitude of many liberals who find themselves to the left of the McAuliffe Democrats. The "wide tent" the author writes of is merely a marketing ploy. The "conservative base" of evangelical Christianity was upset that it was somehow underrepresented inasmuch as the Party was trying to present itself as something else. Schwarzeneggar's celebrity power (something about Hollywood?) is a greater asset to the ballot box than the deviation from the platform represented in Schwarzeneggar's politics. In the meantime, the most accessible Republican of all, Colin Powell, was absent on grounds of protocol that were rejected by two other cabinet secretaries, including one who once compared teachers to terrorists. The platform aims at Constitutional exclusionism. The party of the "wide tent" appears superficial, but here we encounter a problem facing liberals. In all things, liberalism occupies a role as challenging to its character and appeal as the word "moralism" used as a curse. Liberalism asserts progress, inherently asserting a better way. All-or-nothing? In what way is progress represented by the compromise that some people should be held unequal in the eyes of the law? In the present, people treat the term ad hominem according a fairly recent evolution of its definition. The dictionary definition of the term is, "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason" (American Heritage Dictionary). However, there is an interesting Usage Note attached to that definition: In a consumer-driven society, there is a tendency to demand things according to the desires of the consumer. This is only natural. However, while the newer treatment of ad hominem seems to be the standard of American politics, sharpened and refined since the Atwater generation, the GOP also showed with its "wide tent" speakers' list just how much it could appeal by the classic definition of the fallacy. Certainly, the GOP has cast a wide enough tent to find a Democrat beneath it, but who didn't notice the overdose of ad hominem and outright dishonesty necessary for said Democrat to be found tolerable enough to be given speaking time? "Liberal elite" is a term designed around that consumerist notion. To call Zell Miller dishonest is considered ad hominem in the new sense, that the argument focuses on a proposed weakness of its subject. That the statement is demonstrably true rarely enters the argument. Certain tales I am prone to repeat, the OCA in 1992, a book ban request in Salem, Oregon, and others, point back to this situation. "Judicial activism" is often merely constitutional adherence, interpretations based on more than one aspect of the Constitution. Much like homophobia and the "single gay gene", seeking a single Constitutional facet for Roe v. Wade or other such decision is often a fallacious argument. One could likewise argue that freedom of the press only guarantees the right to write publish, and distribute in general, but not the right to sell. In fact, part of the 1992 debate over gays in general--which started as a dispute over a library book--focused on whether the First Amendment covered inclusion in libraries: could a book be refused a place on public library shelves for subjective moral assertions? That I repeat them often enough to probably irritate a few comes not out of the desire to offend, but because I've never heard a suitable answer. Instead of answering the substantive issues, we encounter a strange rhetorical backlash: the folks who assert that their equality only comes with their superiority turn to catch-phrases like "liberal elite", "judicial activism", "liberal media", and so forth. As one who claims that liberalism is the more intellectually challenging route, I understand certain reasons why this sort of politicking is successful. A four-second soundbite has more impact than a dry explanation of fact that takes a couple minutes. The error of the Democrats as liberals comes between a rock and a hard place. Yes, Clinton was able to hit back, but nobody else has the charisma, so in the end it looks like everyday mudslinging raised to pop-art. In the end, capitulating to the GOP strategy of pitching to the low end of the intellectual curve proved to be a poor long-term strategy despite its immediate benefits. A decade and a half after the Democratic Leadership Council formulated the strategy that would raise Clinton to the presidency, that theory has run its course and shows itself easily corruptible and quite anemic. As we saw in 2002, why should the people vote for fake Republicans when there's a real one across the ticket? What happened is that in reacting to each lowering of the bar, the Democrats allowed the GOP to define the terms of the argument. Thus, liberalism perpetually argued from a rhetorical deficit established in the original phrasing of the issue. We saw this most recently in Oregon, where the traditionalist marriage initiative was born in response to county officials attempting to comply with what legal precedent they had. Compliance with the law, then, was denounced as "circumventing the people", and held up as an example of "liberal elitism". While the real issue was asking of the people to insert an obstruction against the recognition that gay marriage rights already existed and simply were not yet enforced, the conservatives were able to convince the people that such recognition was actually a new encroachment. And since liberals are now called on to answer for their "elitism", we might as well stop to ask what the hell the phrase "liberal elite" even means. Because at present, it seems to be a condemnation of the liberal's unwillingness to compromise on certain fundamental points, such as the Constitution that underpins this entire political and legal arrangement called the United States of America. A rational comparison would not be that Christians should tolerate gay marriage, but that Christians should engage in compulsory sodomy. That a liberal is unwilling to "compromise" by forfeiting the U.S. Constitution doesn't seem so elitist to me, and compared to the history of conservatism in American politics, the phrase "liberal elite" seems a lie. Lacking any better conservative expression of the problem, the notion of the "liberal elite" offending "middle America" is functionally useless. Of course, that's the point for conservatives: demand the liberals go snipe hunting. This sort of conservative nonesuch is fun and easy, even and especially for the simple-minded. It's an identity politic more than anything substantial: that an opinion is opposed is important, and damn any thought of whether the basis for the opinion is factually valid. Yes, we're welcome to our opinions, but when opinions are based in on false assertions of fact, are they really proper justification or motivation for action? Given that people's lives and livelihoods are the stakes in human politics, I would think the process deserving of more respect than conservative diversions give it. Conservative political rhetoric, much like cheap comedy, relies more often than not on the ignorance of its audience. Challenging a lack of facts, such as shown by liberal inflexibility in certain issues, is apparently "elitist". Exploiting people's ignorance, well, that's just good politics, ain't it? Or so it seems. That's why it's so important that we get some conservatives to help understand what's wrong with that conclusion, or at least explain why it's not so disgusting as it seems. ____________________ Notes: Shepherd, Jacob. "Letter to the Editor: Stubborn Resistance". SeattleTimes.com, December 27, 2004. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002131260_monlets27.html American Heritage Dictionary. See http://dictionary.reference.com/
i find that complaint of the democrats interesting. people here were saying that the problem with labor politics at the fedral level (I THINK that at the moment every state goverment is labor but they are sliding backwards at a fed level, did even worse out of this election than they had) is that labor was being to wishy-washy and in trying to please the right side voters offened the left. The problem with that view tho is the fact that the greens didnt pick up more of the vote but thats bye the bye. i just find it interesting that both partys with similer ideals lost badly and the critics say its for the oposite reasons still i cant understand how either the libral party here (right wing NOT left, labor is left) or the republicans got back into power. i must be compleatly insane to think that the majority of a countrys population wouldnt want someone who has proven themselves untrustworthy. sorry rant over
Tiassa: I hope I get this right. I've had a few drinks. I get tired of this consumer-driven society bullshit. People have bought and sold things since, well, I don’t know when (But for a very long time). Just because your scarf (Which you use to keep warm) has a duck on it, makes no difference. You just want to be warm, and you buy what you like. So what? But that’s not what this is about. The news is no longer reported, it’s marketed to you. So are your candidates. They’re products, just like detergent. It fucking sucks, but what are you going to do? I listen to NPR, I read Newsweek, I don’t buy into the CNN-shit. Or the Yellowtimes.org. Replace the word “Conservative” with “Liberal” and you’ll get the same argument, Tiassa. You should know by now that both parties have used ignorance to exploit people. You get Jadakiss on the radio telling young blacks (Blacks are primarily Democrats) that “Bush knocked down the towers.” Kitty Kelley wrote a book and told everyone that Bush did coke in the Oval Office, and some weeks later she responded to everyone saying “Yes, I made it up. So?” Really, my problem with your argument is that you place to much blame on the conservatives and not enough on the liberals. You act as if your party is more righteous than mine. It’s not, your party is fucked in the head and you know it. It’s a problem when the facts have been skewed. Don’t you understand? It’s why Dick Cheney said, during one of the debates; go to “Factcheck.org.” And I did. And what I found was bipartisan information. I went from there and made my decisions. Indeed. Someone will always be there to tell people “Vote or die” or, in Cameron Diaz’s, case “If you think rape should be legal, then don’t vote!” When you get down to it, it was the Hollywood, not the liberal, elites that really tarnished the Democrats reputation. You let them speak for you. Hell, you got Brice Sprinstein to go on tour with John Kerry, and you expect them to say the right things? When you get Dumbass Cameron Diaz up on stage, she ain’t gonna say anything smart. They ruined this election. The entire media, and Hollywood, fucked this election up its asshole. You know, I’ve been drinking tonight (Yes, again) but you cannot, and should not, say that the conservatives are using peoples ignorance to exploit them. Especially, and you damn well know, that the Democrats have been right there beside them. Please, for my sake, blame your party as much as you blame mine and get over it.
CC i think the big problem is the conservitives are using BUSH'S ignorance where as the democrates just use the votersPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! but seriously i wish i could get an answer from anyone as to why you people would rather have confermed liers (and please dont bring up clintons lie because he should never have been asked at all) as the countrys leaders. I mean there is no chance of getting even what they promise if you know for a fact that they are willing not only to break election promises (or who doesnt) but stand up infront of both the people and parliment\congress and lie bald face. i dont know about the states but a lie in parliment is a seriouse thing here. i know pollys use question time to behave like little children but you just dont stand up in parliment and say something that you know to be blatently untrue. Its not legal pergery but its still a very seriouse matter but the electrot of EITHER country dont seem to give a rats ass about it. WHY???????????
Relax! Your answer is here. All politicians are liars! There, that's your answer. And Clinton did that. But we aren't on that subject because you've nullified it, correct? And Clinton did that. But we aren't on that subject because you've nullified it, correct? People care, but they don't show it when they step into the voting booth. They feel that their vote is wasted on a third party. That's what I like about Ohio; they love their third party candidates. To bad all the states aren't like Ohio.
CC I would lie if someone asked me a question like that because it had no baring on his ability to bare office lying about the the children overboard, company faud like enron, and itelligence on iraq IS about someones ability to bare office. If clinton lied about things like than then please tell me because its relivant. who he screws ISNT. i dont understand the american habit of prying to the private lives of its leaders. I THINK bob hawk devorced for cheating, john howards married and that is all i know about the private lives of the last 3 PMs because I DONT CARE. hell they could go to the pro's every night for all i care. If it doesnt effect there job what right do you have to ask? would you accept being asked those sorts of questions by YOUR boss?
Aguard: Hmm. The President, of the United States, lies to everyone, on the highest level of court about a blow job he got. No, I don't have a problem with that. Other than that; all you've done is twisted the facts. That's all your post is, twisted facts. Edit: Removed sarcasm mark.
The Hard Sell for Hard Men Curious, indeed. Perhaps it's cultural. After all, several Australians have, in the past, suggested in these fora that Australians are more practical and common-sense than Americans. And I am, after all, prone to criticizing American apathy toward the practical in the intermediate- and long-term. I assert that it is a fundamental cultural problem of ours. No matter how much you hear Americans complain about sleazy politicians, our world doesn't seem to go 'round without them. Understanding certain notions of the phrase, "Honor among thieves," there are certain standards of integrity which can be applied to poiticians. If voters in Australia reject violations of those conventions of integrity, more power to them. A culture making irresponsible decisions from time to time--and all cultures do--is better-kept in the hands of leaders with at least a certain small measure of integrity and decency than one in the hands of, well, the U.S. Congress, for instance. Neither the whiplash effect nor the lashback are quite so severe under leadership with a convention of integrity to answer to. Liberal political philosophy is a harder sell. It appeals to more complex sympathies than the conservative. It would seem to speak poorly of liberals that they are unable to better-express their opinions, but for our part in the U.S., we're at a strange point in our political-ideological evolution at which we must decide whether fair compromise includes violating the very tenets upon which the demand for compromise is based. Liberalism seems high-minded because it will not concede to certain visceral demands. Again, I point to the gay marriage controversy: the liberal goal of instituting same-sex marriage is the appropriate reflection of the present contents of the U.S. Constitution. What drives me batty is that I might have time to raise the money, con my way into law school, and get on the bar somewhere in order to file the case myself before the liberals get around to striking the victory blow. It is, in fact, a stupid arrogance of the people involved, I think, that prevents the liberal advocates from attacking the issue on a gender and equal-protection basis. But the answer is that yes, liberals must figure a way to do the conservatives' homework for them. The conservative position holds out in the face of fact and then cries foul: "liberal elitism". In the U.S., conservative political philosophy appeals primarily to three basic conditions: greed, fear, and superstition. Add to the mix a combination of cool cultural machismo and a persecution complex drawn from reflections on role models (e.g. Jesus Christ, the Founding Fathers, the Pilgrims of the Mayflower, The Boston Tea Party, &c.) cast in mythical terms, and what you get is approximately akin to something referred to as "Angry White Male Syndrome", in which the body with the most political authority suddenly perceives the effects of the very system it has advocated and cries foul. Christian advocates in the political arena have cried that people of the faith are persecuted. In some cases, yes, there is knee-jerk reactionism afoot, but in most "persecution" comes in the form of being treated equally as other philosophical assertions protected by the First Amendment. To be equal is somehow an intolerable state of affairs to this group. A couple of stories I dredge up from time to time: • Once upon a time when I had a boring job that I should have paid more attention to I listened to talk radio because I never really had paid attention to it before. Christians were calling in their stories of persecution. One man told a story of his daughter getting an F on a research paper about Jesus. The host asked the caller some questions, and the following was asserted as fact: the thesis was "Jesus is Lord", the only reference was the Bible. The assignment was a history essay with three references. The host attempted to point out that it did not seem the paper met the basic requirements, but that point was unacceptable to the caller. It was damn liberal teachers-union persecution of Christianity. • A caller complained that the public schools were pushing religion inasmuch as the students had been taken on a field trip to a tribal reservation and there witnessed a ceremony with some religious significance. The host asked if the caller's children sang any Christmas songs in yearly pageants at school. The answer, of course, was yes. The host asked if the children were asked to join the faith. The answer, of course, was no. The host asked about cultural awareness: did not the schools have the need to show differences and similarities between cultures? There was some debate on that point. What exposure to religion that they were not getting in the home did the caller think his children should receive at school? I do not recall an answer ever being established. What if the caller got his wish, and the trips to the reservation were cancelled for being religious? Should the Christmas songs go, too? Apparently, it's not the same thing. Seems a fair question to me, but I guess that's why liberals like me are accused of elitism. By characterizing a threat to very basic human associations--family, faith, virtue and values, &c.--conservatism appeals to base identity politics: • A pastor at a local church turned up in the local headlines after it came to light that he had been accused of indecent exposure at the very least, at a Florida theme park, and also that there appeared to be some police complicity in a possible coverup. At first the reaction was furious: How dare you accuse this upstanding man! Christians rushed to his defense, firing off letters to the editor and excoriating the liberal media in evening-news sound-bites. Then the details came out: it was true. He was accused of showing himself to a young boy in the restroom and saying inappropriately-suggestive things. And yes, it appeared there was an effort to hide the incident. And still the sound and fury continued. Their anger in his defense was not based on anything factual, but rather an identity politic. That a fellow Christian was accused, well, that was more important than the apparent fact that he exposed himself to a young boy and made a pass. I admit, as a liberal, I'm confounded. How does one communicate rationally with one who wishes only irrationality? It was never about the man's Christianity, but that he hit on a little boy in the bathroom at freakin' Disney World. How many social myths did he stain in that one moment? The boy's perception of the world, the image of Disney World, the name of his church, his oaths to God .... I mean, come on! This wasn't about persecuting Christians. It was about preying on little boys and trying to cover it up. And that pattern, that circling of the wagons for an identity politic, is a fundamental marketing strategy of American conservatives. It's an easy pitch--scare people about the things they love most: money, family, eternity. Explaining the counterintuitive, as liberalism often does in the face of what passes for conventional wisdom, is simply a harder sell.
Can't come up with an answer, blame America or our culture. Such an easy way out. Liberals seem to want to defend them all the time. But America, damn, she’s just to blame every time. Is it? Liberal philosophy: accept everyone as they are no matter what. As opposed to conservative philosophy: Accept everyone, except in these instances. Or maybe religion came up with the idea of marriage before you did and it's their choice to decide who gets married or not. And, well, if the government doesn't recognize it, well, what does a gay couple bring to the table? They can't reproduce, after all. As opposed to fear, misinformation, and misinformation/fear. Oh, there’s going to be a draft! Run college students, run! Vote for Kerry while you still can.
tiassa what do you think the solution is? i dont mean to try and get a libral culture but to try and make a culture that conciders other views rationally and can then make an informed decision and if that decision is that tax cuts for the ritch is a good idea then good but at least the decision was informed and not about ignorance. Should you force feed language studies (as in issue studys not nessarally studys OF a language), debating and cultural studies onto students? is the way history is taught in schools the problem (i know here that there was a big thing going around a while back that no one even knew the first PM of australia and that all the history taught in schools was either greek, middle ages or american history and not our own). I am guessing that the solution isnt to alow parents to dictate what cant be taught in public schools because then you might as well not HAVE schools at all. If all kids learned was what parents wanted them too you might as well go back to the pesant class system of eroup because thats what they had, a system where by parents taught there children and they only ever learned the "family bussiness" because thats all the parents knew> what do you think?
CC are you playing devils advocate or do you really belive that about gay marrage? i mean couples get more out of marrage or even a defacto relationship than just kids. things like the rights to a persons estate, to make medical decisions on there beharf, the right to be next of kin ie funral arangments ect, rights to make decisions for the other partner if nessary hell even the right to nominate your account to pay there bill (that was a problem for my GF and i because we dont have the same last name, because we arnt married but i was controling her account and she wanted it to come out of hers because they are her calls) what in any of those has to do with children?
Should I blame the French? Or at least the French-Canadians? And? It's what we choose. Interesting way of putting it. Nonetheless, what did the people choose? I mean, we did just have an election. That's rather irrelevant. I know, I know, it's just "liberal elitism" that compels me to point out that it doesn't matter. Marriage is a legal contract for the purposes of government. You know, First Amendment and all. Constitution. Remember that thing? I know, it's just my "elitism" kicking in. Is that really a valid point? Reproduction is not a prerequisite of marriage, else my mother would never have been allowed to get married. Additionally, it's not gays leaving 110,000 kids without families in this country each year. Perhaps if they'd hammered that point to the end, you might have a point. To the other, even the military admits the use of the stop-loss policy in Iraq is atypical. You'd think if the situation wasn't so dire, and the draft not so sensitive an issue, the Bush administration would be applying policies more wisely. Don't attribute your own methods to others, especially when you must first exaggerate what facts you bring to the argument.
Sarcasm. You respond to my point with sarcasm. See below. It's not what everyone chooses. Half of the registered voters in this country voted for Bush, the other Kerry. And then you have the ones who didn't vote. Blame them. They need to be informed. The best way for people who don't care about politics or don't vote to get information is to listen to these Hollywood Elites. And it shouldn't be. Marriage should not get you a tax break. Having kids/adopting them should. It isn't. It has nothing to do with this topic, I agree. This is why I don’t have a problem with gays adopting children. I have a problem with them getting married. I have a problem with anyone who gets married. It's a bad idea in general, and people shouldn't get a tax break (Unless they have kids). Don't exaggerate your facts either. As I stated before in a post, in this thread; don't act as if your party is the righteous one. That's what the problem is. You aren't blaming yourself enough, but you're doing a good job of blaming everyone else.
You saw Clinton hit back? I only saw the political equivalent of "rope-a-dope". Clinton survived because many people found him likable and some swing voters saw though the Ken Starr sleaze. The Democratic pitch to the low end of the intellectual curve was much to feeble. In my opinion the democrats should get tougher, nastier, and dirtier. But they will need to buy their own media because the current one will not cooperate with a tough nasty Democratic party. I agree with the why would people want to vote for a fake Republican when they can vote for a real one line. In the short run moving towards the middle works but in the long run doing that means abandoning your beliefs and appearing unprincipled. Republicans have kept their eye on their long term political goals and Democrats should learn from their success. I think "liberal elite" is an oxymoronic. But I would still love to hear conservatives try to explain what "liberal elite" means.
