This guy’s real problem with “American liberalism” is that he doesn’t have the first clue what “American liberalism” actually IS. He’s listended to too many republican memes and talking points, and he believes the propoganda. Perhaps if he would actually go out and meet some actual real-life liberals, rather than just go to International ANSWER meetings and the like, he might get himself some edumacation.
-me
FORM A CIRCLE AAAAAND…..COMMENCE FIRING!!!
me, I don’t really know who he’s talking about, but as far as who he is, he’s written previously for some jerkwater rag called Rolling Stone.
Mel Brooks said it best: YOU ARE WHAT YOU (f***ing) MOCK! (emphasis mine)
Matt’s a talented guy, but his talent consists of making fun of things. While this may be amusing, and may even be appropriate and ring true in many cases, it isn’t always going to be on point.
Scroll down through the comments and you will find a comment that basically says “if you replace every occurrence of ‘liberal’ with ‘conservative’ the piece makes exactly as much sense.” That guy nailed it. Actually, in my opinion, it is much more appropriate and true with that substitution.
Matt’s fundamental mistake is by trying to define liberalism as opposition to various things, which is not the case. Liberalism is, plain and simple, taking a liberal (as in the sense of tolerant, balanced, generous) approach to political and social issues.
One of the article’s commenters speaks for me:
“What a crappy essay. I kept reading it for just a miserable hint of insight and I found none. No real explanations, no theories, no insights, just a recitation of already known facts. One after another in rapid succession to numb the reader’s brain. You know how quickly I can dynamite this entire piece of shit? In exactly 5 seconds. Everything this essay accuses liberals of applies equally to conservatives. That’s it, kaput….” (my emphasis)
So true, Moonbat…..
But take heart, almost everyone I know is just plain sick of the current status. Everyone from hard core fundy Christians to my more liberal friends recognize that we can’t continue on this path to destruction. Between the rediculous cost of health care and dentistry to property taxes, the rising cost of fuel and groceries, the maiming of our military, etc, etc. Nothing makes sense anymore to anyone, it’s just plain Alice in Wonderland shit…….
We’re diving into an empty pool and the concrete is real and very hard.
But.. freedom is on the march and tyrants tremble!
Liberalism is, plain and simple, taking a liberal (as in the sense of tolerant, balanced, generous) approach to political and social issues.
Comment by Charles — June 15, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
That was really nicely and succinctly said, Charles. Thank you. I like to think of liberals as being the people who are not trying to shove their point of view down the throats of people who think differently. We live and let live.
Don’t forget, classic conservatism is the belief that there are those who should rule and those who should be ruled. In classless America, at least as advertised, that definition would not play well at a Republican candidate’s sponsored Fourth of July picnic.
If you undermine the foundation of a building, the building falls down and you’re left with a pile of rubble, which is an apt description of today’s conservative talking-points. Liberals would be wise to ignore the rubble and focus on the original building.
There were a lot of believers in classic conservatism among the framers of the Constitution. The Electoral College and the orginal (until 1913) device of choosing senators through election by the state legislatures speak to the not uncommon belief at the time that the general public, read those who should be ruled, didn’t have enough sense to come in out of the rain. (Wasn’t it Scalia, a classic conservative, who told us we did not have the right to vote?)
I love the “lurkers support me in e-mail” stuff.
So convenient that he found :”liberals” who were willing to provide him with such egregious (I’d rather show you my genital warts than admit to being a liberal) agreements with his, “premise.”
When you don’t have to actually quote anyone, it’s so easy to get the sort of quote you need.
This guy’s real problem with “American liberalism” is that he doesn’t have the first clue what “American liberalism” actually IS. He’s listended to too many republican memes and talking points, and he believes the propoganda. Perhaps if he would actually go out and meet some actual real-life liberals, rather than just go to International ANSWER meetings and the like, he might get himself some edumacation.
-me
FORM A CIRCLE AAAAAND…..COMMENCE FIRING!!!
me, I don’t really know who he’s talking about, but as far as who he is, he’s written previously for some jerkwater rag called Rolling Stone.
Mel Brooks said it best: YOU ARE WHAT YOU (f***ing) MOCK! (emphasis mine)
Matt’s a talented guy, but his talent consists of making fun of things. While this may be amusing, and may even be appropriate and ring true in many cases, it isn’t always going to be on point.
Scroll down through the comments and you will find a comment that basically says “if you replace every occurrence of ‘liberal’ with ‘conservative’ the piece makes exactly as much sense.” That guy nailed it. Actually, in my opinion, it is much more appropriate and true with that substitution.
Matt’s fundamental mistake is by trying to define liberalism as opposition to various things, which is not the case. Liberalism is, plain and simple, taking a liberal (as in the sense of tolerant, balanced, generous) approach to political and social issues.
One of the article’s commenters speaks for me:
“What a crappy essay. I kept reading it for just a miserable hint of insight and I found none. No real explanations, no theories, no insights, just a recitation of already known facts. One after another in rapid succession to numb the reader’s brain. You know how quickly I can dynamite this entire piece of shit? In exactly 5 seconds. Everything this essay accuses liberals of applies equally to conservatives. That’s it, kaput….” (my emphasis)
So true, Moonbat…..
But take heart, almost everyone I know is just plain sick of the current status. Everyone from hard core fundy Christians to my more liberal friends recognize that we can’t continue on this path to destruction. Between the rediculous cost of health care and dentistry to property taxes, the rising cost of fuel and groceries, the maiming of our military, etc, etc. Nothing makes sense anymore to anyone, it’s just plain Alice in Wonderland shit…….
We’re diving into an empty pool and the concrete is real and very hard.
But.. freedom is on the march and tyrants tremble!
Liberalism is, plain and simple, taking a liberal (as in the sense of tolerant, balanced, generous) approach to political and social issues.
Comment by Charles — June 15, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
That was really nicely and succinctly said, Charles. Thank you. I like to think of liberals as being the people who are not trying to shove their point of view down the throats of people who think differently. We live and let live.
Don’t forget, classic conservatism is the belief that there are those who should rule and those who should be ruled. In classless America, at least as advertised, that definition would not play well at a Republican candidate’s sponsored Fourth of July picnic.
If you undermine the foundation of a building, the building falls down and you’re left with a pile of rubble, which is an apt description of today’s conservative talking-points. Liberals would be wise to ignore the rubble and focus on the original building.
There were a lot of believers in classic conservatism among the framers of the Constitution. The Electoral College and the orginal (until 1913) device of choosing senators through election by the state legislatures speak to the not uncommon belief at the time that the general public, read those who should be ruled, didn’t have enough sense to come in out of the rain. (Wasn’t it Scalia, a classic conservative, who told us we did not have the right to vote?)
I love the “lurkers support me in e-mail” stuff.
So convenient that he found :”liberals” who were willing to provide him with such egregious (I’d rather show you my genital warts than admit to being a liberal) agreements with his, “premise.”
When you don’t have to actually quote anyone, it’s so easy to get the sort of quote you need.