McGentrix wrote:Leading off with a nazi reference never impressed me. Your post simply reinforces the concept of liberal elitism because all you have done is try to show that the opposite side has done the same thing or worse. Is the idea of liberal elitism so indefensible that all you can do is try to demonstrate the evils of the other side instead of examining the evil in the mirrior? Boy, talk about projection.
Actually, the reference was to the use of the propaganda technique you employed; one that was first used with wide affect by Dr. Goebbels, and projects onto opponents your own methods. You obviously have issues with being caught at it, and instead of admitting it, you responded by accusing me of things I did not do and of being a hateful person for pointing it out to you.
But if you want to wear a swastika, go right ahead.
Maybe you can get yourself one of those Waffen SS belt buckles. You know, the ones which say ""Gott Mit Uns" ("God is with us.")
Further your remark is a pretty good example of what I was referring to elsewhere by my earlier remark by:
Quote:"both groups (religious and secular righ) attack those who question their motives and instead of defending themselves with the facts and proving the truths of their arguments, attack their opponents as "intolerant."
McGentrix wrote:No, the ones that wish to keep murdering babies and using abortion as a method of birth control. Death is death and the liberal elitist seems to have no qualms with it. That is unless the person being killed is a mass murdering rapist, then look out!
You are demanding that others believe in what you do, and want the law to enforce your ideas of morality. It is exactly the behavior you level at "liberal elitists." Of course, when you do it its not the same, is it?
You might want to call the Vatican on the death penalty. I understand their credentials on this issue are impeccable. So I assume you will be calling the Pope an "elitist liberal" next.
McGentrix wrote:No, I mean the ones that completely disregard the desires of a girls parents who only wish they could have their daughter back.
Oh, you mean the myriad of courts and judges (18 of them, I believe) who found no law or reason not to allow the husband (and who by law is the decision-maker in these situations) to seek his wife's wishes not to be kept alive in a vegetative state? The woman was brain dead and she was lost a dozen years ago. And it exemplifies yours and the standard right wing fetish of the body over the spirit, the denotation of dogma over the metaphorical connotation.
McGentrix wrote:No, I mean the liberal elitists who wish to change two thousand years of tradition and religious sentiments because a tiny minority of a population is crying oppression. More government control over people's personal lives. Government and liberal elitists should keep their noses out of people's religions.
One must have a reason for tradition to be followed other than because "God said so!" And if you note, you made my argument, that it was the Right who wanted more control over the issue of a marriage contract. One would think that a conservative would nor want government interference in a contract between two competent parties, But here you are, ready to dictate private behavior via government force.
McGentrix wrote:No, the ones that flee their state in order to keep a vote from happening because they may get their way.
Ah, Texas reapportionment is it? Where never before had a state re-do its federal districts twice after a census taking. That actually was quite a radical grab for power, that broke 200 years of established process for reapportionment, and it was done only for political purposes, not increased governing efficiencies. Wouldn't you call that a radical grab for power if it was done in a Blue state? Of course you would.
Or how the GOP House leaders broke with over 200 years of established procedure and kept open the voting on the drug prescription benefit plan over THREE hours past the House time limit, simply so they could cut backroom deals and arm twist members who had originally voted against the plan.
Had a Democratically controlled House done that, your ilk would be screaming bloody murder, but since your boys did it, no problemo.
These radical, "anti-traditional" things were done by the GOP. Both things far more radical attacks on established governmental rules than letting Steve marry John. So who there was acting as an elite? Those who wanted to do what had not been done before, or those who had respect for established government procedures and process?
You can not have it both ways when you say that you stand for established and traditional processes while you stand mutely by as your side rips them up when convenient for increasing their political power.
McGentrix wrote:Nope, I mean the ones that are changing their positions to be more religious friendly because they realize that what the people of America are looking for.
So you are for overturning the 202 years of precedent of Judicial Review of legislation (Marbury v. Madison) because some right wing radicals do not like it when the court prevents the introduction of religious factors into government proceedings.
McGentrix wrote:No, I am referring to those liberal elitists that thought containment was enough and that no terrorist would ever dream of attacking the United States.
Well, the first major attack was perpetrated by a fellow traveler of yours, a right wing, religious fanatic, Timothy McVeigh, in 1995. So, its hard for anyone to take your remark seriously that no one "would ever dream of attacking the United States."
Perhaps you really meant George Bush thinking "no terrorist would ever dream of attacking the United States."
After all, what was that National Security Council and CIA memo he got over a month before 911? What was the name of that memo? "bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States." What did George Bush do? Why he stayed on vacation for the next 30 days, that's what he did. So, apparently your argument is with George Bush. He was the one who did not think terrorists would attack the US. Not liberals. Liberals warned him the week he came into office that his administration would be spending a lot of time dealing with al Quida, but the Bush administration ignored the advice, just like it did the warnings, because they thought they knew better.
You might also admit that liberals were right about Iraq under Hussein, the trade embargo worked. The Iraqis had little more than sticks and stones to fight off the Americans in March 2003, precisely because sanctions WERE working.
McGentrix wrote:No, I mean the elitists that never considered the weak position of the US military and used severe budget cuts to establish an illusionary budget surplus. The same ones that allowed companies like Enron and Adelphia run rough-shod over their employees and allowed a recession to start because they could not get a grasp on the economic events of the late 90's.
McGentrix wrote:No, I mean the ones that want to pamper drug abusers and prisoners while ignoring the great many people in America that obey the law and try the best they can to get by in life. The only victim the liberal elitist knows is the one breaking the law and abusing the already over-burdened social support services.
That first remark is completely stupid. No one pampers drug users and prisoners. American prisons are horribly violent places and are a national disgrace. 2.1 million prisoners are housed in facilities meant for less than a third of the present population. More than one half are convicted of non-violent, victimless crimes. There are more men raped in jail every day in American prisons than women are on the outside. The US penal institutions cost tax payers nearly $150 billion a year, and rising so fast we simply do not know where we expect to get the money without increasing taxes.
Study after study that money spent on drug rehab reduces recidivism more than stiff prison sentences. One wonders how the latter improves the balance sheet of the government when the most efficient use of money is blocked for ideological reasons.
And you obliquely bring up "welfare queens" in a discussion on why right wingers, for purely ideological reasons do not admit the facts that undermine their policy positions on prison issue? How lame can you get.
McGentrix wrote:No, I mean the ones that are threatening to fillibuster the vote for federal judges because they can not get their way and are afraid that a conservative judge may upset the delicate balance that Clinton built by nominating extreme liberal judges to the 9th circuit.
How many judges did Clinton have rejected versus George Bush? Show us all the numbers so we can see how goofy your remark really is.
Note to you, if those Clinton appointees were so liberal, how did thy make it past a Senate controlled by Republicans since 1995?
If you are going to act like a child and bitch about the Democrats supporting only 95% of Bush judicial appointments, then where was your outcry when the GOP supported a much lower percentage and stopped dozens of Clinton appointments from having a vote on the floor of the Senate.
You cannot have it both ways: in one case think it absolutely okay, in fact the right of the Senate to hold up dozens of judicial appointments from a Democratic administration, while complaining about constitutional usurpation when Democratic reject FIVE out of 205 Bush appointments?
There is no logical or ethical consistency in your argument. It is nothing more than an excuse for a power grab by the GOP and you support it.
You have no intellectual integrity on this issue.
McGentrix wrote:No, I mean the ones that believe they know better than a teens parents how to raise their children.
Who believes that? You are referencing the recent Florida case where a 13 year old girl was permitted to have an abortion? She as that right even if the parents do not want her to have one. That girl is not property, even you think she is the property of her parents who can do wither as they wish. SHE IS NOT PROPERTY.
McGentrix wrote:No, I mean the ones that write books like "what's wrong with Kansas?" or headlines that lament the stupidity of the American populace.
Do you mean those who have no idea of the working definition of what is referred to a "theory" in science; who also think the world is only 6,000 years old, that God create the universe in 6 days, that mankind sprang up all at once? That the entire Earth was flooded at once, that the Sun stood still in the sky over the walls of Jericho so Joshua could capture it and put every man, women, child and beast to death?
Are those who you defend as informed, intelligent people?
McGentrix wrote:No, I mean the ones that keep complaining about programs like No Child Left Behind which has been trying to improve the education system through actual education instead of additional government programs and interference.
So those who are told to shove 10 pounds of $hit into a 5-pound bag and who point out that 1 + 1 does not equal 3 are complainers?
The NCLB law states certain criteria must be met in schools, but it pledged to supply the funding necessary to do the job. Well, the goals are still there, but the money to achieve the goals is not. You might as well ask a person to rappel down a 1,000 foot mountain face and give him only 500 feet of rope and declare that, "Hey, I met you half-way, stop your bitching!"
You might want to review the states who are opting out of NCLB and realize that the states doing so are headed by both democratic and republican governors.
McGentrix wrote:The liberal elitist makes stupid comments about rich people not actually working for their money
Kuvasz wrote:
Quote:You are of course referring to those stupid liberal elitist comments that ask why investment income is taxed a lower rate than labor, why the percent of federal tax from individuals has risen and corporate taxes have fallen, while corporate earnings have increased 15% over the last several years and worker's wages have stagnated.
McGentrix wrote:No, I mean the ones that ignore the facts about taxes and instead choose to point out insignificant statistics that mean nothing.
There it is, finally a perfect example of the mindless defense of the Right Wing dogma in America; whenever the facts of a situation do not conform to a priori beliefs, throw out the facts. You are another in a long line of ideologues who will deny any facts if they undermine your assumptions.
It is not insignificant that US taxes are lower than any first world industrialized nation and that a direct correlation can be found to lower social services rendered and that an inverse relationship can be found to the health of and mortality rates of the average citizen.
Yyou dismiss these reports with a wave of your hand, not because there is no pertinent and recognizable correlation, but because admitting such a correlation would undermine your ideology.
McGentrix wrote:No, I am referring to man that went to Yale University, then to Harvard, then later became a governor and finally President of the United States. There have only been 43 in the history of the US.
Yes, and only the second whose own daddy was president, so you wish to compare George Bush (the lesser) with John Quincy Adams? Go right ahead. Even Bush's graduate school profs considered him uninformed and the dullest pencil in the box.
McGentrix wrote:I do not have the time to continue with this. I am quite right in what I said and you demonstrated nothing other than the fact you harbor great hatred towards the conservative movement and a myopic vision of your own side of politics
.
You exhibited exactly the behavior to which I referred is normally employed by right wing fanatics when challenged to present facts to support their statements:
First, you failed to show with supporting evidence that the behavior you called "liberal extremist" is in fact coming ONLY from liberals and lefties.
If it comes from the Right (as I showed) as well as the Left (so by your examples, anyway) then it is not singularly an attribute of liberals and the adjective "elitist" does not fit exclusively the noun "liberal," and also is proper for using it to define the Right Wing as well. Therefore, it is a useless term in the discussion because both sides are accused of it.
Additionally, when you were shown evidence that undermines your postulate that the term "elitist" was an exclusive trait of liberals, you dismissed these facts as inconsequential and declared that your adversaries are hateful people for pointing out the inconsistencies of your positions.
Man, your post was a textbook example of right wing rhetoric, and a far better one than I could have given as an example of your behavior.
