Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Whom do you consider to be the elites?
On Liberal Contempt Toward Conservatives
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Whom do you consider to be the elites?
The problem Will is it's not that there are slightly more people living on the coasts, it is that you claim that there are so many more that the middle doesn't matter, but the 140 million people who DO live there combined with our way of picking Senators and the Electoral College is why you are WRONG.
Bells
Staff member
The divide is much more than whether the woman is brought up to believe in that ridiculous ideal of Mommyland. I think this is just one part of the divide that is being discussed here.
I find it ironic that many in Conservative circles do espouse the view that women need to play housewife on a permanent basis, where apparently a trip to McDonalds should be deemed as a gift to the mother (I chuckled) while glorifying the likes of Palin and her ideology... That Palin is a working woman who, if her appearances in the public sphere is to be believed, is rarely home to play the housewife and Mommy.
But it is a view held by some conservatives. I would not have thought that Reagan's son would want to hold such a view in this day and age, but some do hold it. Ask the likes of Baron Max, who is adamant that America went to hell when women were given the right to vote.. he believes that women have too greater role in the public sphere instead of doing what they are apparently supposed to be doing - and that is being home and in the kitchen and taking care of the children. But this is a recurring theme.
Look at how Hillary Clinton was derided by the right. She was seen as being too opinionated, too lippy and too smart. I mean remember the nutcracker?
Can you imagine one of these being made for Barbara Bush? No. She was the housewife.. But a stront opinionated woman? The figurine speaks for itself.
Bells
Staff member
From what he wrote and the way he wrote it, I'd say it was the 'edumicated' and those who aren't in 'Jesusland'.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
The divide is much more than whether the woman is brought up to believe in that ridiculous ideal of Mommyland. I think this is just one part of the divide that is being discussed here.
I find it ironic that many in Conservative circles do espouse the view that women need to play housewife on a permanent basis, where apparently a trip to McDonalds should be deemed as a gift to the mother (I chuckled) while glorifying the likes of Palin and her ideology... That Palin is a working woman who, if her appearances in the public sphere is to be believed, is rarely home to play the housewife and Mommy.
But it is a view held by some conservatives. I would not have thought that Reagan's son would want to hold such a view in this day and age, but some do hold it. Ask the likes of Baron Max, who is adamant that America went to hell when women were given the right to vote.. he believes that women have too greater role in the public sphere instead of doing what they are apparently supposed to be doing - and that is being home and in the kitchen and taking care of the children. But this is a recurring theme.
Look at how Hillary Clinton was derided by the right. She was seen as being too opinionated, too lippy and too smart. I mean remember the nutcracker?
Can you imagine one of these being made for Barbara Bush? No. She was the housewife.. But a stront opinionated woman? The figurine speaks for itself.
Yeah but is it the most important divide? I don't think so. As you noted Pailin wasn't a housewife, Ann Coulter is a lawyer. Barbara Bush couldn't be turned into a doll because BB wasn't anything more than the first lady, as far as I know she has never entered into the political fray. Is there an Michelle Obama doll? She used to work. Why is she now taking on the role of teaching america's kids what and how to eat? That's close to the kitchen. Why is she sitting with little children all the time showing them the White House puppy? She's a lawyer. Was Condoleezza married with children? The point I'm trying to make is that how women are perceived is besides the point. I haven't heard of democrats and liberals saying 'Gee I really hate the Right because of how they mocked Clinton'. Its deeper than that. This is minutia compared to what both sides are really locking horns over. Its more back-room gossip that drowns out the real issues, the real source of the divide. The two parties are not at each others throats because of the virtues Clinton has over Pailin or issues regarding stay at home mothers. Gender is a red herring.
"In 2002 about eleven million children, or 25% of children under age fifteen living with two married parents, had full-time stay-at-home mothers."
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1...WORKING-PARENTS-CHILD-CARE.html#ixzz1BFdRrqnA
25% is nothing and reflects that both conservative and liberal mothers are indeed working. So the mockery of Clinton isn't because she's smart or because she works but because she was the opposition and therefore political fodder. With Clinton the best way to take a crack at her is to say she was disagreeable, with Pailin its to point out her lack of knowledge and lack of qualifications. These displays of what is called 'political theater' only serves as distractions on actual policy. The divide is hinged on both economic and a difference in values ie. tax cuts and whether gays should be allowed to marry. It was the debate over the character of HC that distracted many from the details of her health care proposal as they were burning her in effigy back in the day. But if we look very closely to actual policy (domestic & foreign) and how politics is practiced then the picture becomes a little more muddled as you can see that both parties play in a similar fashion and even pander to the same interests (mostly corporate interests).
I think the 'great divide' is mostly an emotional fixation for both parties who know that if you can get voters emotionally caught up in a personality then they won't pay too much attention to the details and who is doing what.
I mean outside of Pailin appearing to be a twit when asked certain questions I couldn't tell you what her policy platform consists of. She was a keynote speaker for the Tea Party folk but I just see that as her taking an opportunity to garner their favor as a voting base. During her address she went on to call them "the future of politics in America" which is very convenient but it doesn't tell me anything. Interestingly she was reportedly payed $100,000 for the speaking engagement and that was criticized by many Tea Party members. She has a reality show, her daughter was on 'Dancing with the Stars", that's just creating celebrity where americans then latch on to her emotionally in either a positive or negative way. Clinton is secretary of state and yet when was the last time you heard of anything she was doing in that capacity? I mean she recently said this at an AIPAC conference:
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at the AIPAC conference Monday that new Israeli settlements in occupied Arab lands not only hurt US standing in the peace process, but they also complicate the US bid to win additional sanctions against Iran."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreig...raeli-settlements-complicate-US-goals-on-Iran
This after taking on an exclusive pro-Israel stance. Remember during her elections when she said the US would support Israel "forever and ever":
"Clinton is taking an exclusively pro-Israel stance. She favored Israel’s war on Lebanon and Hezbollah in July-August 2006, she supports the separation wall Israel is building in the West Bank, and she has not spoken against Israel’s expanding settlements in the Occupied Territories. She does favor a two-state solution and an independent Palestine and considers the Bush administration’s disengagement from the Palestinian-Israeli peace process a mistake. But she offers no specifics about bringing Israelis and Palestinians to a new understanding."
http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/p/me071111.htm
When do we talk about that? What is she doing as Secretary of State? Do we know? Do we care? At this point we are more interested when Hilary got in a huff because some student in Africa asked her what her husband thinks!
If we are to say that there should be no public mocking of Clinton then we should also say there shouldn't be a public mocking of Pailin on Saturday Night Live but either way we don't really learn too much about what these women really stand for. Its all just a way to mud-rack so no one has to be bored with the fine print.
It would be more enlightening to focus on the real philosophical underpinning that separates the two parties. I mean is there really a philosophical difference? And if so what is it? When did it begin? Who does it represent?
Whatever comes out of that I'm sure how working women are perceived or in what light Hilary or Pailin is cast is really besides the point.
I'm thoroughly amused by the tags at the end of this thread. It reads: conservatives, conservatives chew dicks, male supremacy, michael reagan, sexism, the heartland blows
Inspiring isn't it?
Last edited:
As to the first part, we were not set up as a pure democracy. We are a republic. The 2000 election declared the proper winner; as more states & counties were won by the guy with the less popular vots that is what a republic is about.
Well, duh!!
Elites are running the country & yes they impart legislation to ensure they will remain so.
Once again, you cannot escape playing politics can you?
Get your heads outta the gutter, hicks. You DO matter less. And if it weren't for a bicameral legislature where you get two senators who disproportionately represent you , your fat loser asses wouldn't matter at all.
Res ipsa loquitur
Sorry, but yes. Most people in this country live in or around the east or west coasts of the USA.
Hint: blue is more dense. Yellow is not dense.
You may not like it, but it's the truth all the same. "Middle America" means rather little, overall. They are not very representative of American ideals.
By the way, much of "the heartland" falls within what is called "the stroke belt," due to the extremely high rates of cardiovascular disease in those horrible, horrible states. Maybe when they named themselves the heartland, they meant "heart disease land?"
Middle America, if I'm not mistaken, has somewhere around 80% of our agriculture... does it not?
on a state by state basis, those nazi hicks cant even get that right
we left coast libs farm like nobody's business
California is by far the most productive agricultural state in the country. With 4% of the nation’s farms, California generates 13% of U.S. farming receipts. In 2001, California generated nearly twice as much revenue as Texas, the next most productive state.
California grows more than half the nation’s fruits, nuts, and vegetables, producing more than 350 different crops and commodities. The state leads the nation in production of more than 70 specialty crops.
California also leads in agricultural exports, shipping more than $6.5 billion in products around the world. Canada is the number one destination for California’s exports, followed by the European Union and Japan.
ja
we dont need those inbred, speaking in tongues, goosestepping...... fraks
sea to shining sea? frak that too
yeah
looks about right
about time too
/spits
we left coast libs farm like nobody's business
California is by far the most productive agricultural state in the country. With 4% of the nation’s farms, California generates 13% of U.S. farming receipts. In 2001, California generated nearly twice as much revenue as Texas, the next most productive state.
California grows more than half the nation’s fruits, nuts, and vegetables, producing more than 350 different crops and commodities. The state leads the nation in production of more than 70 specialty crops.
California also leads in agricultural exports, shipping more than $6.5 billion in products around the world. Canada is the number one destination for California’s exports, followed by the European Union and Japan.
ja
we dont need those inbred, speaking in tongues, goosestepping...... fraks
sea to shining sea? frak that too
yeah
looks about right
about time too
/spits
Last edited:
Yeah... but, that's red California. We're the state that gave the world Nixon and Reagan, after all.
Blue California makes a lot of great beer, software and movies, though.
Blue California makes a lot of great beer, software and movies, though.
Sorry, shouldn't be airing dirty laundry like this. We pretend my conserva-fascist Fresno relatives don't exist at most family gatherings...
Also, credit Blue California with wine... mostly.
Also, credit Blue California with wine... mostly.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
The Genius of the Crowd by Charles Bukowski
there is enough treachery, hatred violence absurdity in the average
human being to supply any given army on any given day
and the best at murder are those who preach against it
and the best at hate are those who preach love
and the best at war finally are those who preach peace
those who preach god, need god
those who preach peace do not have peace
those who preach peace do not have love
beware the preachers
beware the knowers
beware those who are always reading books
beware those who either detest poverty
or are proud of it
beware those quick to praise
for they need praise in return
beware those who are quick to censor
they are afraid of what they do not know
beware those who seek constant crowds for
they are nothing alone
beware the average man the average woman
beware their love, their love is average
seeks average
but there is genius in their hatred
there is enough genius in their hatred to kill you
to kill anybody
not wanting solitude
not understanding solitude
they will attempt to destroy anything
that differs from their own
not being able to create art
they will not understand art
they will consider their failure as creators
only as a failure of the world
not being able to love fully
they will believe your love incomplete
and then they will hate you
and their hatred will be perfect
like a shining diamond
like a knife
like a mountain
like a tiger
like hemlock
their finest art
there is enough treachery, hatred violence absurdity in the average
human being to supply any given army on any given day
and the best at murder are those who preach against it
and the best at hate are those who preach love
and the best at war finally are those who preach peace
those who preach god, need god
those who preach peace do not have peace
those who preach peace do not have love
beware the preachers
beware the knowers
beware those who are always reading books
beware those who either detest poverty
or are proud of it
beware those quick to praise
for they need praise in return
beware those who are quick to censor
they are afraid of what they do not know
beware those who seek constant crowds for
they are nothing alone
beware the average man the average woman
beware their love, their love is average
seeks average
but there is genius in their hatred
there is enough genius in their hatred to kill you
to kill anybody
not wanting solitude
not understanding solitude
they will attempt to destroy anything
that differs from their own
not being able to create art
they will not understand art
they will consider their failure as creators
only as a failure of the world
not being able to love fully
they will believe your love incomplete
and then they will hate you
and their hatred will be perfect
like a shining diamond
like a knife
like a mountain
like a tiger
like hemlock
their finest art
Response to a Simplistic Political Argument
Some might say the same of conservative (insert denigrating characterization of intelligence here).
To the other, while DBNP48 might overstate the statistical reality (e.g., "most"), there might be a reason why people tend to do that.
Once upon a time, women figured out that they could marry for love and contentment instead of as political pawns in a game of shuffling in-laws. Conservatives of the day bemoaned the hell that this such empowerment of women would unleash.
Starting after WWII, and especially after the Long Decade (approx. 1945-1962), women started asserting themselves in the labor force. Conservatives of the day bemoaned the upsetting of the family and social structures.
In my lifetime, I can say that in the 1980s, it was women with careers and abortion; in the 1990s, it was gays and abortion. And while the abortion debate rolls on, the whole conservative issue with women has degenerated into a complicated neurotic mess.
But throughout my lifetime, it seems people have always been telling women to get back in the kitchen. Careers? That's no more a woman's place than ironing his shirts is a man's work, or so the attitude was then. And, yes, that's a particularly accentuated caricature; one need not be so blatant about it, but one certainly could be.
Gays? By disrupting the gender roles (husband get a job, wife cook and clean and raise children) gays were wrecking the American family.
The twenty-first century has been weird. The whole social conservative movement seems in crisis. We've even seen some assertions that feminism is well-represented by women who achieve some manner of fame or influence, and then advocate that the rest of their sisters get back in the kitchen: Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell—and a common factor is that they are often intended to have some visual or sexual appeal. Rich Lowry played up her sparkle and shine after the debate:
Or, as David Horsey suggested, in consideration of the skewering the National Review editor received for his blog post:
It's the sort of thing that leads to punch lines like Bill Maher's assessment of Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, and Michele Bachmann:
And, yes, we know. The conservatives of thirty years ago are not necessarily the same as conservatives today. Neither were those older like the conservatives of thirty years before them, and so on. There was once a British MP who explained that women could have the vote when they were bigger than men. This goes back at least to Wollstonecroft, Rousseau, and the doll. Which means we've been hearing the same thing for generations, at least back to 1791.
After a while, some trends do start to stick to the identity label. I don't know. Two hundred twenty years of repetition hasn't really won the argument, has it?
Two hundred twenty years, man. At least. We get it ... except that we're not allowed to because that's somehow wrong and hateful to do so.
It's the twenty-first century. Not the eighteenth. Yes, Michael Reagan's complete and contemptible stupidity is part of the caricature construct known as the conservative stereotype. The world has been hearing this one for over two hundred years, and it's only because conservatives think there's something new about what they are saying compared to what their predecessors said that we're not allowed to treat these ludicrous notions according to their ... ahem ... "merits".
Conservatives lost this argument two hundred twenty years ago. Why are attitudes like Reagan's granted any legitimacy in allegedly serious public discourse?
There is a reason some people find the argument embarrassingly stupid, profoundly uninformed, and barely literate.
And I guess you have to include Will, according to self-identification, but I'm hard-pressed to understand the objection to the protection afforded population-minority states within the bicameral system; part of liberalism is protecting those who would be otherwise disempowered by majority vice—and history, as we both know, is rife with majority vice.
Indeed, though, I admit I occasionally hear something of pity. In an age so marked by a "fuck 'em" attitude toward one's "enemies", I suppose pity is a step in the right direction. But few people find comfort in being pitied unless they are in a genuinely pitiful condition.
It doesn't seem constructive to pity those who would only resent it.
On the other hand, it seems rather obvious to get pissed off at such blatant provocation. But that runs into another problem. If it's hard to take conservtives seriously because of so many of the completely messed-up things they advocate, then we begin prejudging.
It's a predicament. Why are we still hearing this sort of stuff? What are we supposed to make of it? As you can see, it's the sort of thing that does in fact stir some contempt in people.
Maybe if it wasn't more than two centuries later and we're still hearing it ...?
Yeah, maybe people's opinions about conservatives would change. Maybe their disagreement wouldn't be so sharp, if we weren't constantly revisiting bygone centuries for the satisfaction of the superstitious.
Given that this is largely a reiteration of what I've already posted, I would note personally that I find rather problematic your refusal to consider the detail.
Sorry, dude, but if you want to tell us that the "thread is a perfect example of liberal arrogance", you're going to need to show the audience that you understand the issues under consideration.
Refusing to address those issues in order to perpetuate an anemic, self-righteous façade simply isn't going to demonstrate that understanding.
Right now, sir, you have the appearance of being distressed because someone said something you think is unkind. And they shouldn't do that, should they? Especially if it might be true. Because you're demanding the political correctness of not having offensive behavior described in a manner that describes it as offensive.
So try answering the issue honestly, sir:
It's an easy enough question.
But I understand its complications for egotism: If the answer is yes, then it becomes clear why liberals hold conservatives in contempt for its blatant sexism. If the answer is no, then conservatives look bad for having promoted over the course of decades ideas that they don't actually believe, and all for a cynical ploy to win votes.
Still, though, in the end, if conservatives ever decide to behave decently again, they can expect to be treated accordingly. The facts that conservatives are, in the present day, so markedly dishonest even compared to the tangled mess of American politics, and that they have been this way for generations does not presuppoe that this is the only way they can act. After all, they're human beings.
If you must so severely and often rely on dishonesty to achieve your political goals, I might suggest there is something amiss with the goals themselves.
____________________
Notes:
Lowry, Rich. "Projecting through the Screen". The Corner. October 3, 2008. NationalReview.com. January 17, 2011. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/171291/projecting-through-screen/rich-lowry
Horsey, David. "Sarah Palin's wink factor". Drawing Power. October 4, 2010. Blog.SeattlePI.com. January 17, 2011. http://blog.seattlepi.com/davidhorsey/archives/150535.asp
Maher, Bill. "New Rules". Real Time With Bill Maher, #193. HBO, Los Angeles. October 15, 2010. HBO.com. January 17, 2011. http://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-b...aher/episodes/0/193-episode/article/new-rules
Women in World History. "Mary Wollstonecraft Debates Jean-Jacque Rousseau, 1791". (n.d.) WomenInWorldHistory.com. January 17, 2011. http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/lesson16.html
Madanthonywayne said:
Some might say the same of conservative (insert denigrating characterization of intelligence here).
To the other, while DBNP48 might overstate the statistical reality (e.g., "most"), there might be a reason why people tend to do that.
Once upon a time, women figured out that they could marry for love and contentment instead of as political pawns in a game of shuffling in-laws. Conservatives of the day bemoaned the hell that this such empowerment of women would unleash.
Starting after WWII, and especially after the Long Decade (approx. 1945-1962), women started asserting themselves in the labor force. Conservatives of the day bemoaned the upsetting of the family and social structures.
In my lifetime, I can say that in the 1980s, it was women with careers and abortion; in the 1990s, it was gays and abortion. And while the abortion debate rolls on, the whole conservative issue with women has degenerated into a complicated neurotic mess.
But throughout my lifetime, it seems people have always been telling women to get back in the kitchen. Careers? That's no more a woman's place than ironing his shirts is a man's work, or so the attitude was then. And, yes, that's a particularly accentuated caricature; one need not be so blatant about it, but one certainly could be.
Gays? By disrupting the gender roles (husband get a job, wife cook and clean and raise children) gays were wrecking the American family.
The twenty-first century has been weird. The whole social conservative movement seems in crisis. We've even seen some assertions that feminism is well-represented by women who achieve some manner of fame or influence, and then advocate that the rest of their sisters get back in the kitchen: Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell—and a common factor is that they are often intended to have some visual or sexual appeal. Rich Lowry played up her sparkle and shine after the debate:
I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can’t be learned; it’s either something you have or you don’t, and man, she’s got it.
Or, as David Horsey suggested, in consideration of the skewering the National Review editor received for his blog post:
Yes, for some people, Palin's constant smile, her winks, her head bobs, her dropped "G's" at the end of words -- thinkin', doin', fightin' -- her shout out to elementary school kids back home in Alaska and her spurning of formality may show a disturbing lack of seriousness at a time of national peril. But those winks and that smile, combined with those high heels, tight skirts, nice legs and long hair, have clearly got Rich Lowry and a few million other American males thinking things they've never thought about a political candidate before. And it's not just conservatives.
After the debate, I talked with TJ, a female friend of mine with close ties to heartland voters. I like to check in with her for an angle on politics that differs from the view from urban Seattle. Unfortunately, she had missed the debate, but her ex-husband had caught it. He's a tree-hugging, Stanford-educated, bleeding heart liberal, but his reaction to the debate was: "She's hot." TJ was disgusted. "Men are so predictable," she told me.
And, of course, that's true. Men are predictable. And manipulating predictable patterns of human response is an important skill in the art of politics. That's why I wasn't surprised to hear a pollster report recently that some surveys are showing Palin has more support among men than among women. Everyone assumed John McCain picked Palin to appeal to all those working class females who loved Hillary Clinton. That doesn't seem to be working. But something else is.
A guy I know (who will remain unnamed for his own security) showed me a picture on his iPhone the other day. It was Sarah Palin's head expertly superimposed on a very lovely and very naked female body. There are numerous images like that floating around the Internet. I have yet to see a comparable image of Joe Biden. Call it sexist, call it the work of males who can't break free of their adolescent fantasies about pretty females, call it predictable, but don't call it immaterial to the democratic process. As Madison Avenue proved long ago, sex sells.
After the debate, I talked with TJ, a female friend of mine with close ties to heartland voters. I like to check in with her for an angle on politics that differs from the view from urban Seattle. Unfortunately, she had missed the debate, but her ex-husband had caught it. He's a tree-hugging, Stanford-educated, bleeding heart liberal, but his reaction to the debate was: "She's hot." TJ was disgusted. "Men are so predictable," she told me.
And, of course, that's true. Men are predictable. And manipulating predictable patterns of human response is an important skill in the art of politics. That's why I wasn't surprised to hear a pollster report recently that some surveys are showing Palin has more support among men than among women. Everyone assumed John McCain picked Palin to appeal to all those working class females who loved Hillary Clinton. That doesn't seem to be working. But something else is.
A guy I know (who will remain unnamed for his own security) showed me a picture on his iPhone the other day. It was Sarah Palin's head expertly superimposed on a very lovely and very naked female body. There are numerous images like that floating around the Internet. I have yet to see a comparable image of Joe Biden. Call it sexist, call it the work of males who can't break free of their adolescent fantasies about pretty females, call it predictable, but don't call it immaterial to the democratic process. As Madison Avenue proved long ago, sex sells.
It's the sort of thing that leads to punch lines like Bill Maher's assessment of Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, and Michele Bachmann:
The lovely milfs of the new right. And their little secret is that their popularity comes exclusively from white men. Look at the polling: minorities hate them, women hate them. Only white men like them. I'm no psychiatrist, but I do own a couch. And my theory is that these women represent something those men miss dearly—the traditional idiot housewife.
If an election between Obama and Sarah Palin were held today and only white men could vote, Sarah Palin would be president.
If an election between Obama and Sarah Palin were held today and only white men could vote, Sarah Palin would be president.
And, yes, we know. The conservatives of thirty years ago are not necessarily the same as conservatives today. Neither were those older like the conservatives of thirty years before them, and so on. There was once a British MP who explained that women could have the vote when they were bigger than men. This goes back at least to Wollstonecroft, Rousseau, and the doll. Which means we've been hearing the same thing for generations, at least back to 1791.
After a while, some trends do start to stick to the identity label. I don't know. Two hundred twenty years of repetition hasn't really won the argument, has it?
Two hundred twenty years, man. At least. We get it ... except that we're not allowed to because that's somehow wrong and hateful to do so.
It's the twenty-first century. Not the eighteenth. Yes, Michael Reagan's complete and contemptible stupidity is part of the caricature construct known as the conservative stereotype. The world has been hearing this one for over two hundred years, and it's only because conservatives think there's something new about what they are saying compared to what their predecessors said that we're not allowed to treat these ludicrous notions according to their ... ahem ... "merits".
Conservatives lost this argument two hundred twenty years ago. Why are attitudes like Reagan's granted any legitimacy in allegedly serious public discourse?
There is a reason some people find the argument embarrassingly stupid, profoundly uninformed, and barely literate.
And I guess you have to include Will, according to self-identification, but I'm hard-pressed to understand the objection to the protection afforded population-minority states within the bicameral system; part of liberalism is protecting those who would be otherwise disempowered by majority vice—and history, as we both know, is rife with majority vice.
Indeed, though, I admit I occasionally hear something of pity. In an age so marked by a "fuck 'em" attitude toward one's "enemies", I suppose pity is a step in the right direction. But few people find comfort in being pitied unless they are in a genuinely pitiful condition.
It doesn't seem constructive to pity those who would only resent it.
On the other hand, it seems rather obvious to get pissed off at such blatant provocation. But that runs into another problem. If it's hard to take conservtives seriously because of so many of the completely messed-up things they advocate, then we begin prejudging.
It's a predicament. Why are we still hearing this sort of stuff? What are we supposed to make of it? As you can see, it's the sort of thing that does in fact stir some contempt in people.
Maybe if it wasn't more than two centuries later and we're still hearing it ...?
Yeah, maybe people's opinions about conservatives would change. Maybe their disagreement wouldn't be so sharp, if we weren't constantly revisiting bygone centuries for the satisfaction of the superstitious.
Given that this is largely a reiteration of what I've already posted, I would note personally that I find rather problematic your refusal to consider the detail.
Sorry, dude, but if you want to tell us that the "thread is a perfect example of liberal arrogance", you're going to need to show the audience that you understand the issues under consideration.
Refusing to address those issues in order to perpetuate an anemic, self-righteous façade simply isn't going to demonstrate that understanding.
Right now, sir, you have the appearance of being distressed because someone said something you think is unkind. And they shouldn't do that, should they? Especially if it might be true. Because you're demanding the political correctness of not having offensive behavior described in a manner that describes it as offensive.
So try answering the issue honestly, sir:
Are we really supposed to take him seriously? Are we really supposed to think that the slow decay of male supremacy in our society is destroying not only American families, but the nation itself?
It's an easy enough question.
But I understand its complications for egotism: If the answer is yes, then it becomes clear why liberals hold conservatives in contempt for its blatant sexism. If the answer is no, then conservatives look bad for having promoted over the course of decades ideas that they don't actually believe, and all for a cynical ploy to win votes.
Still, though, in the end, if conservatives ever decide to behave decently again, they can expect to be treated accordingly. The facts that conservatives are, in the present day, so markedly dishonest even compared to the tangled mess of American politics, and that they have been this way for generations does not presuppoe that this is the only way they can act. After all, they're human beings.
If you must so severely and often rely on dishonesty to achieve your political goals, I might suggest there is something amiss with the goals themselves.
____________________
Notes:
Lowry, Rich. "Projecting through the Screen". The Corner. October 3, 2008. NationalReview.com. January 17, 2011. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/171291/projecting-through-screen/rich-lowry
Horsey, David. "Sarah Palin's wink factor". Drawing Power. October 4, 2010. Blog.SeattlePI.com. January 17, 2011. http://blog.seattlepi.com/davidhorsey/archives/150535.asp
Maher, Bill. "New Rules". Real Time With Bill Maher, #193. HBO, Los Angeles. October 15, 2010. HBO.com. January 17, 2011. http://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-b...aher/episodes/0/193-episode/article/new-rules
Women in World History. "Mary Wollstonecraft Debates Jean-Jacque Rousseau, 1791". (n.d.) WomenInWorldHistory.com. January 17, 2011. http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/lesson16.html
if you think my comment speaks for it self as to contempt either a. you don't understand the difference in meaning of the words contempt and pity b. are so consumed in the right wing persecution complex everything looks like contempt because you think everything is an attack.
could be a combo too. also you in your attack against that fail to see maybe the right wing deserves to be held in contempt.
Looking at why that position ran aground is instructive, here. To wit: women started working out of economic necessity (WWII) and continued do to economic necessity (the single-income middle-class household being a steadily receding memory these days). And this was all very much in line with the favored economic policies of conservatives. Which is to say that there has long been a direct conflict between the positions of economic conservatives and social conservatives, and it hasn't gone well for the social conservatives.
But neither does an overt choice ever get made - that would entail actually telling the social conservatives to screw off. Instead they just stumble along, all politely pretending not to see the conflict, and using whatever slogans will get whatever voters to the polls. This hollows out the social conservative position, as it becomes associated with deep insecurity and frustration. So it becomes shrill, unaccountable and stupid. Pretty much perfect as a badge for identity politics, but contemptible as an actual "argument."
It works the same way in larger terms. So-called "conservatives" (scare quotes because the core platform there is actually radical) have cut themselves off from the actual, real political debate on substantive issues (which now takes place between the left, center and right factions of the Democratic Party) in favor of a nihilistic approach. Everybody else sits around the table and debates, and then the conservatives show up to upend the table and make off with whatever silverware they can grab in the ensuing melee. And that suits them fine, since it also prevents the debate from ever getting anywhere. Rhetorical relations reflect this thuggish character - their politics having been reduced to a series of badges of group membership, there really isn't anything for them to express to outsiders besides blanket contempt. By design: a polity that could sustain reasoned, respectful discourse, and couple such meaningfully to decision making, is not one that would allow for such a faction to exercise any influence.
TL;DR version: conservative politics is all about not having a meaningful dialogue - literally, a way of expressing hostility and contempt for anyone that would attempt such. Conservative "argumentation" boils down to a series of insults to the audience. And said contempt should be returned in kind - to respond with respect and good faith is to knuckle under to bullying.
the conservative tactic is to use the destruction of family as an excuse to attack feminism. the truth was the destruction of family was brewing underneath the surface all along.
realistically, women had no rights and were subject to such cruelty by the whims of their families or husbands. without education and the ability to make a living for oneself, one is too vulnerable for very obvious reasons when one has to rely on someone else and they know it. women were regarded as property, more or less. how someone was treated was up to the whim of the husband and in a patriarchal society, women would have no real rights.
the destruction of family or the revealment of what was wrong or couldn't be sustained was going to be exposed sooner or later anyways. i've even heard personal anecdotal stories from others who witnessed how their mothers were treated by their fathers. some of these were older people and it broke their heart and knew it was wrong and they had no rights. not only were the women but the children totally under the iron rule of the husband. it's like a pressure cooker which will explode eventually when problems are not addressed and hiding it is not the answer either which is what die-hard conservative approach is. they make the rules and everyone else has to deal with it, so to speak. what's good for them must be good for everyone.
ironicly, i think it's technology that will be responsible for giving more time to families to nurture eachother as well as provide more time for individual pursuits for everyone. in conclusion, help families out.
realistically, women had no rights and were subject to such cruelty by the whims of their families or husbands. without education and the ability to make a living for oneself, one is too vulnerable for very obvious reasons when one has to rely on someone else and they know it. women were regarded as property, more or less. how someone was treated was up to the whim of the husband and in a patriarchal society, women would have no real rights.
the destruction of family or the revealment of what was wrong or couldn't be sustained was going to be exposed sooner or later anyways. i've even heard personal anecdotal stories from others who witnessed how their mothers were treated by their fathers. some of these were older people and it broke their heart and knew it was wrong and they had no rights. not only were the women but the children totally under the iron rule of the husband. it's like a pressure cooker which will explode eventually when problems are not addressed and hiding it is not the answer either which is what die-hard conservative approach is. they make the rules and everyone else has to deal with it, so to speak. what's good for them must be good for everyone.
ironicly, i think it's technology that will be responsible for giving more time to families to nurture eachother as well as provide more time for individual pursuits for everyone. in conclusion, help families out.
Last edited:
One simple way to settle this would be for conservative and liberals to each use their own money to pay for their own policies.
For example, illegal immigration. If the Liberals wish to welcome them and allow then to have access to all social entitlements, the liberals would need to collect taxes from other liberals, who want the same thing and foot the bill. If they did that, the conservatives would not feel a hand in their pocket, and may not act as defensive.
Conservatives see liberals as high maintenance wives. You are both in it for the duration, but it gets harder over time. But if the wife paid for her own excessive spending, the husband would not be grouchy. Once she understood that money does not grow on trees, she would become less liberal with her own money. The husband would help.
Statistics have shown that conservative give more to charity than liberals. This is where one gives of their own money. Liberals give more of other people's money, while conservative tend to give less of other people's money. A tax break gives money back to people. While a tax increase is so you can spend it.
The solution is simple, allow both sides to get what they want. But use two tax bases, liberal tax for liberal policy and conservative tax for conservative policy. Then we compare which works better.
For example, illegal immigration. If the Liberals wish to welcome them and allow then to have access to all social entitlements, the liberals would need to collect taxes from other liberals, who want the same thing and foot the bill. If they did that, the conservatives would not feel a hand in their pocket, and may not act as defensive.
Conservatives see liberals as high maintenance wives. You are both in it for the duration, but it gets harder over time. But if the wife paid for her own excessive spending, the husband would not be grouchy. Once she understood that money does not grow on trees, she would become less liberal with her own money. The husband would help.
Statistics have shown that conservative give more to charity than liberals. This is where one gives of their own money. Liberals give more of other people's money, while conservative tend to give less of other people's money. A tax break gives money back to people. While a tax increase is so you can spend it.
The solution is simple, allow both sides to get what they want. But use two tax bases, liberal tax for liberal policy and conservative tax for conservative policy. Then we compare which works better.
Last edited: