Why Call Them ‘Liberal’ When They’re Anything But?
While Shakespeare thought a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, that only works in the garden. In politics, a biased choice of words just plain stinks.
It is presumably well known that whoever controls the terminology controls the debate. Yet conservatives have been getting their semantic plows cleaned by liberals for decades and have not yet understood this basic form of thought control. The left does not underestimate, as we do, the power of word selection in manipulating ideas and opinions. As Barack Obama himself has said, “Words matter.”
To begin with, let’s note two major errors in the previous paragraph:
- The use of the word “conservative” to describe those who hold to the principles of the Founding Fathers of this nation. The founding of America was the most liberal act ever committed by mankind. And the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the two most liberal documents ever to arise from the mind of man.
- The use of the word “liberal” to denote those who essentially believe in socialism/Marxism, a philosophy which has historically caused the enslavement of countless millions and the deaths of countless millions more.
The basic meaning of “liberal,” according to Mr. Webster, is “free” or “generous.” He also defines the word as “favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual.” That is exactly what the Declaration and Constitution do.
I don’t think it hurts our side much to be labeled “conservative,” because we are both conservative and liberal, in that we seek to conserve those “political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual” which the Founders established.
In contrast, the “reforms” advocated by so-called “liberals” may appear on the surface to advance individual freedom and do in fact often advance license, which is not the same thing. But their reforms always ultimately advance government control, which always and inevitably leads to loss of freedom. They present themselves as liberal, but in practice their philosophy always kills true liberalism.
It is essential that we use the correct terminology when we speak of “liberals.” In this era, the people who call themselves by that name are in fact socialists and Marxists. We must no longer allow them to control the debate by mindlessly parroting their choice of words. One of my favorite passages in the Bible is Isaiah 32:5 in the King James Version, which tells us that when God sets things right, “The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl [stupid, ignorant, and cross-grained person] said to be bountiful [generous].”
Any knowledgeable “liberal” is a socialist and every truly serious “liberal” is a Marxist, if not a Stalinist. Stalinists believe all opposition must be silenced, which is the reason for the political correctness movement and the move toward reimposition of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”
Norman Thomas, who ran for the presidency of the United States six times as the Socialist Party candidate, is said to have stated: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”
It cannot be confirmed that Thomas actually said the above, but whoever said it was right. That day has come.
David B. Jenkins:
What bunch of crap. Now write one about ‘conservatives’.
Oh, no! That would take so long you’d forget what you were writing about.
Vivo, please point out in what particulars I was wrong. To say what I wrote is a bunch of crap does not in any way enlighten the discussion and is really nothing more than a smear.
There is much to consider here, Dave. I do not find this to be a bunch of crap at all. Vivo may have some actual points about conservative wordsmithing but unfortunately did seem interested in actual discussion. Too bad. There was a famous speech given by a democrat after FDR’s election excoriating the about-face of that party’s platform and how it was hoodwinked into this doublespeak. Orwell got it right to some degree. Perhaps the roots of this reverse terminology began in 1929.
Aside from the inane comments of the on-duty troll, tt has been clear to those who wrong for many decades. As F.A. Hayek pointed out so well, there is no difference between the outcomes desired by any of these labels: socialists, Marxists, fascists, statists, collectivists, looters, fundamentalists, neo-liberals (as opposed to classic liberals). They are all the would-be controllers of everyone else. In fact the terms “left” and “right” are misnomers, as the author indicates. It is like having a score czrd with the names and numbers wrong. It would be better if we all looked at it as a circle with freedom in the middle. Moving in ANY direction, left, right, up or down, means a reduction in freedom. Another way to look at it is that for each increase in the level that people are controlled, there is a corresponding loss of freedom. As long as mankind is imperfect, there will never be perfect freedom. There will also never be perfect control, as long as there are men who want to be free. Unfortunately most l of the media thinks that the people are too stupid to grasp anything but a linear concept of labeling, and as long as the would-be controllers can get away with calling themselves the opposite of what they really are, we are stuck in this dilemma.
Vivo: I know you are, but what am I?
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
That was probably the most informative article I have read this year. I will surely watch my phraseology in the future.
By the way, my grandfather was born on the mountain and played as a child at Rock City before it was Rock City. Needless to say, he grew up to be a geologist.
I remember the barns as a child. All we have now is the bird house.
Beauxdog
I think one thing that makes using words like liberal & progressive alright is that language isn’t static. Gay used to mean happy, now it means homosexual. Awful used to mean the same thing as awesome. Language shifts as a natural part of societal development. And today, I know diehard-Dems who get really uncomfortable if you say they’re liberal or when they have to say they’re liberal because it’s beginning to have very negative connotations.
I agree about controlling the language but I don’t think we need to try and reverse the tides. Use the language that has been given to us & make sure EVERYONE knows what it means.
How about “reality-based community”? I love this one.
Great article, Dave! Very informative!
Hey, Vivo – what’s wrong? Don’t you like being properly identified?
“Another favorite verbal tactic of the left is the use of the word “smear.” Any accusation against a leftist is automatically labeled a smear.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Vj2rwwisc
The reason conservatives will continue to fail is simple: you believe your own hype.
Thanks for the article. Keep up the important work.
I thought you were going to mention Friedrich Hayeck’s treatment of this topic and how the socialists shifted the terms around. I assume you have read it in The Road To Serfdom- regardless, your article inspires me to go back and re-read Hayeck’s treatment again.
You need to have a serious conversation with Frank Luntz about how words can mislead and obscure intent. Luntz is a conservative idealog who helps Republicans lie to America. That’s why we have birthers, deathers, and global warming deniers. No matter how you smear liberals, we can’t measure up to that insanity.
Sorry, stupid mistake: Hayek not Hayeck.(If words matter they should be spelled right)
See Ch. 2 The Great Utopia
Finally – somebody has woken to the same reality I’ve been expressing for the last several years. The so-called liberals are not liberal; indeed, they are anything but liberal. Those “liberals” have hijacked the word for the very reasons that David Jenkins points out, to beguile the public. What I usually say about so-called liberals is the following: the only things liberals are liberal about is how they liberally spend other people’s money, how they liberally use government power to reduce our liberties, and how they liberally dispose of unwanted fetuses.
When I describe myself as liberal, I describe myself as a “classical liberal” to distinguish myself from those who abuse the word when describing themselves.
There is nothing ‘liberal’ about those who are calling themselves liberal. They are anything but. They are really several varieties of Marxist: Socialists, Statists, Trotskyites, and a few old-fashioned Populists who don’t realize that the land under them has shifted violently Left. Some are even outright Communists.
The most accurate thing you can call them is Leftists.
2. Dave Jenkins:
“It is essential that we use the correct terminology when we speak of “liberals.” In this era, the people who call themselves by that name are in fact socialists and Marxists.”
I may be a liberal compared to you or some pajammers but I’m not a socialist or a Marxist.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
I go by the first two, you’re lumping everyone by the next two.
It’s like lumping conservatives into fuddy-duddy, hardliner, neocon, reactionary, right-winger, or redneck.
Howiem is on the right track. The founding fathers were not inclined to think in terms of liberal or conservative. Instead they saw the political spectrum as the continuum from total Anarchy to absolute Tyranny. While anarchy offered the greatest power to individual actions – the founders feared that it would ultimately lead to chaos through mob rule. They looked at the French revolution to understand the ultimate path of anarchy. At the other end they saw tryanny as the imposition of government over the people – where the people’s lives, liberty and fortunes where subject to the whims and oppression of the ruler. They saw little difference between the monarch or the imposition of oppressive powers eminating from a democracy. That is why they chose a representative form of government with a specified limited role for the federal government (as clearly enumerated in the text of the constitution). Their hope was that by granting the greatest potential for government power at the level closest to the people, they would offer a successful check against the enroaching powers of the state. They also through design gave the states a substantial role in the selection of representatives in the federal government by reserving the selection of U.S. Senators to each state legislature. Again the intended power check was that the states governing interest and rights (as stated in the 10th Amendment) would be protected by the state’s representatives (their selected Senators).
The political battle once again is between liberty and tyranny with the lefist lined up on the side of taking control of individual’s rights and liberties. Tyranny by any other name is still Tyranny.
Anyone interested in Mr. Jenkins article may also be interested in this:
link to read Ch. 2 “The Great Utopia” from Hayek’s The Road To Serfdom:
http://books.google.com/books?id=eTve6XEUbYIC&dq=hayek+road+to+serfdom&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=JOnVSrSBJIOmlAfJtqicCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CB8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Mr. Jenkins,
It is interesting that something that was observed by F. A. Hayek when Franklin Roosevelt was the president, and reiterated by many actual liberals, is now a subject for Republicans to begin to consider. Republicans are terrible politicians and that is why these regressive vivo types are running the country today. The bigger problem is that most of these regressives will never even be exposed to the history you support your thesis with. They have been continuously fed the government viewpoint in the public schools. Even Rush Limbaugh gives these people the mantle of being called liberals.
As an aside, congratulations vivo! You have successfully first-posted on these threads at least 1000 times. For all you Republicans out there, there is political significance to this and vivo knows it. vivo, don’t say I never said anything good about you.
Thanks, Vivo. This was a far more worthy critique. However, you’re still dodging the issues, because one would have to be utterly blind not not to recognize that the policies advocated by the so-called liberals of the present day tend toward increased state control and therefore, toward reduction of personal liberty. (Although not, as I said, toward reduction of license.)
Sharon, it’s hardly insane to deny global warming. Unless you wish to imply that the BBC and countless scientists are also insane.
By “deathers,” I suppose you mean those who say that government-sponsored health care would lead to rationing, and thus inevitably, to someone making decisions about who gets care and who does not get it and thus is left to die. Please explain to me why this is wrong thinking.
I realize that since “liberal” positions are seldom based on logic, leftists have no way to defend them except by name-calling and ad hominum arguments. Refute our arguments if you can. Otherwise, calling us insane is only a smear.
Vivo: Are you kidding!? You are not free from bigotry, or broadminded. The views of your fellow leftists, marxists, stalinists, pro-abortionists, and I may as well say it: treehuggers are the only views you consider.You are blind, dude! Where are all the other trolls today?
Generally speaking: Leftist are lazy losers,lacking in logic.
Well I thought this to be an excellent and insightful article.
“It cannot be confirmed that Thomas actually said the above, but…”
…such considerations never stop a PJM blogger!
Please, by all means, keep calling your fellow Americans Stalinists for supporting freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom from government imposition of religious mores.
The GOP is already expert in distorting the language of debate (e.g. “death tax”, “death panels”, “pro-life”, “pro-marriage”) and has been using the term “liberal” as a smear for a generation – to the point that it has lost any impact. That’s why the noise machine is turning to terms like “socialist” and “marxist” – this is an example of the boy who cried wolf.
You tried calling people liberals as a smear, and people eventually came to realize that they agreed with what the liberals were advocating. So now you move to calling people “communists” in an attempt to activate feelings of fear and discomfort left over from the cold war. But this too will fail, as people realize that it is just more hyperbole from a party of hypocrites.
The GOP cannot call itself liberal – because it is not. The GOP does not support progress – it is a conservative party that supports moneyed interests at the expense of the people, religious mores being written into law, authoritarian intelligence gathering and torture.
You can’t claim the mantle of conservatism and also claim to be a liberal – they are not compatible impulses. You can’t claim to be progressive, because the policies the GOP supports are universally regressive and reactionary.
Pro-life is one of the biggest jokes – the anti-abortion movement is not pro-life, it is pro-forced birth. It is an attempt to violate the fundamental right of a woman to control her own body. To claim that this policy is “liberal” or “progressive” or not based on “authority” is laughable. The outcry against gay marriage is likewise an example of bigotry based on traditional religious beliefs that have no place in civil marriage laws. Tax cuts for the rich are the most regressive policy possible, and they are the mantra of the GOP.
You are only going to confuse yourselves if you try to pretend you can be all things to all people by calling yourself by different names. The people are smarter than this (well, most of them, anyway). All you will accomplish by pursuing such bold dishonesty is the continuing exodus of rational and intelligent people from the GOP.
Peace.
DS
The GOP is already expert in distorting the language of debate… and has been using the term “liberal” as a smear for a generation – to the point that it has lost any impact. That’s why the noise machine is turning to terms like “socialist” and “marxist” – this is an example of the boy who cried wolf.
Please explain why any of these terms are “distortions”? Whenever the socialists want to slam conservatives, they accuse them of “distortion,” carefully neglecting to perform any kind of careful analysis of the actual statements. The “noise machine” is turning to terms like “Marxist” and “Socialist” because they are, in fact, accurate depictions of what the “left” are trying to do.
Dave, Vivo:
The brain, it hurts.
I don’t understand Lefties fascination with socialism. They adore Europe, where everyone is equally poor, except the government politians and big government run/controlled business. France has slums with millions of muslims living in poverty, there are slums everywhere in Europe. And if you think Europe’s poor are anything like the US poor, you are living in a dream. They live in slum camps with scraps and handouts and no future. Why do the leftists want the poor to be poorer, why are they so incredibly mean and cruel. It is the poor who are hard hit with energy increases, which increases the cost of food, heating, fuel, pretty much everything! Increased taxes, passed on to increase the cost of everything else. Less jobs and private businesses gone down.
Europe, where Big Government controls everything and there are no individual freedoms, except to work hard to give your money away to social programs that don’t work. The reason they don’t work is because the bureaucracy to run these programs take up 80% of the money and yes I guess if you are a government worker, that is a good thing, they have unions and good benefits and great wages, and private businesses can’t afford it and go under. And then the money for social programs can’t help people who need it, because it is all gone to government wages. And the poor get poorer because Leftists are cruel and selfish people.
How do they defend themselves. Instead of pointing to a bright, shining future, explain to us how this is going to work, because I haven’t seen it, can’t see and bright, shiny words just don’t seem to work that well!
One word: “Power”
As I posted in another thread…
To call a commie a commie or a nazi a nazi is borderline taboo in todays world.
David S., you make statements, but give us no reason why we should accept those statements as valid. Are we to suppose, as Mr. Obama would have us believe, that simply stating something makes it true?
“All you will accomplish by pursuing such bold dishonesty is the continuing exodus of rational and intelligent people from the GOP.”
Well, maybe, but right now the flow seems to be moving the other way. Or are “rational” and “intelligent” now defined only as “supporting leftist policies?”
Let me ask you something, David: are you a relativist?
D.S.,
Prop8 passed in one of the most Leftist states in the Union. Obviously Calipornia isn’t made up entirely of Mormons. So, what could it be? There are also a lot of religious blacks and browns on the Democrat team. There are also [shockingly] a lot of Catholic Democrats who don’t believe in destroying human infants.
Looks like you Dems need to kick out a good portion of your constituency so that your blithering utopia is complete.
P.S. You Dems have your own soft bigotry to contend with.
“’It cannot be confirmed that Thomas actually said the above, but…’
…such considerations never stop a PJM blogger!”
But Biblio, I did not say anything false. I did not claim that Thomas made that statement. All I said was that, whoever said it, the substance of it is correct. Please refute the facts contained in the (supposed) Thomas statement, don’t just jeer at me for making an important point in a perfectly legitimate way.
@30. Delia:
Prop8 passed in one of the most Leftist states in the Union. Obviously Calipornia isn’t made up entirely of Mormons. So, what could it be? There are also a lot of religious blacks and browns on the Democrat team.
Proposition 8 barely passed in California – and given current trends, this will be the last gasp of the anti-marriage forces. Support for gender neutral marriage laws is growing at about 2% per year, and the legal basis for discrimination in marriage laws is untenable. It is only a matter of time – civil marriage cannot be maintained as a discriminatory institution, because the rights of the people trump such laws. The state simply is not permitted to make such distinctions.
I also think calling California one of the most Leftist states is going a bit far – this is a state with a Republican governor, after all. I do hold Mormons and Evangelicals mostly responsible for the hatred and discrimination directed against gays – their religious beliefs have no place in law, and have provided motivation for untold violence against homosexuals.
There are also [shockingly] a lot of Catholic Democrats who don’t believe in destroying human infants.
There are also [shockingly] a lot of pro-choice Democrats who don’t believe in destroying human infants.
Looks like you Dems need to kick out a good portion of your constituency so that your blithering utopia is complete.
Not at all. That’s the virtue of tolerance – we can all agree to disagree, and leave choices about marriage and health to the people who get married and receive care. Imagine – allowing the people liberty to make their own choices! Must be a blithering utopia.
P.S. You Dems have your own soft bigotry to contend with.
No doubt there are still a lot of bigots in both parties. The difference is that one party courts the bigots, and promotes them as candidates for office – and the other party works to educate and diminish the influence of bigotry. It’s a long term process.
Peace.
DS
David S., quo warranto? By what authority does a woman have the right to control her own body, or indeed, by what authority does anyone have any rights at all? Only if they come from God can they be rights, else they be privileges that can be lorded over others and revoked at will. As it is, the right to personal autonomy does not extend to using your body or your free agency to kill or maim another person.
I am in full agreement about the term “liberal”. American “liberals” have no right to appropriate a term which originally meant (and, in Europe and Australia, still means) almost exactly the opposite of what they stand for today, and not just in economic policy. This is why I always use quotation marks when talking about American “liberals”.
By the same token, however, the term “progressive” should be reserved for the American “left”: they have a copyright on it. And besides, would you really want to be associated with an ideology that gave rise to eugenics and “scientific” racism, and inspired Mussolini and Hitler? I say, let the lefties call themselves progressives if they want to: then they cannot dissociate themselves from forced sterilization programs and racial segregation.
Speaking of which, the words “right” and “left” have themselves reversed their meaning in the last couple of centuries: in post-Napoleon France, the “right” was the party of authority and state power, the “left” the party of individual liberty; see George Watson’s The Lost Literature of Socialism. Also worth reading are chapter 2 of The Road to Serfdom (thank you ctf for reminding me) and Herbert Spencer’s essay on The New Toryism:
http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Spencer/spnMvS1.html
Neither Hayek nor Spencer explicitly talk about “right” and “left”, but you can easily understand how they translate into modern terminology.
VIVO AND HIS FELLOW TOTALITARIAN ENTHUSIASTS ARE ALL CRYPTO STALINISTS;THEY HATE BEING EXPOSED(AS DOES THEIR IDOL OBAMA).THAT’S WHY THEY HATE PJM AND FOX SO MUCH.THANKS MR. JENKINS!
SCRATCH A LIBERAL,FIND A STALINIST!THEY SMELL BAD TOO!
Sorry, I should have written:
[progressivism] gave rise to eugenics and _eagerly embraced_ “scientific” racism.
“Scientific” racism predates American progressivism to my knowledge.
As for the alternative labels for the “left” proposed by the author: “statism” seems appropriate for what nowadays passes for the “left”. As I indicated above, “leftism” is ambiguous in a broad historical perspective. “Socialism” can be taken to mean either central planning or more specifically collective ownership, and therefore I prefer to avoid the term. Marxism seems to have had a strong influence on the American “left”, but American “Marxism” is a very different beast from Soviet Marxism, and using the same term can generate confusion (I believe American Marxism to be at a lower intellectual level than Soviet Marxism, but not necessarily at a lower ethical level).
I can also think of more offensive labels, but in general it is not a good idea to impose a label on people who do not accept it.
“Marxists differ from liberals in a fundamental way. Liberals seek to reform the system while Marxists try to abolish it. Marxism has demonstrated that liberalism is only a historical phase in the evolution of the capitalist system and alternates with periods of severe reaction. Marxists are in continual struggle with liberalism as a current of political thought.” Sam Marcy
I prefer the origin of “words”, and their history as universally defined, not a reinterpretation by those with a political agenda.
For instance, which type of conservative are you? There are many to choose from, even liberal conservative. You need to accurately define yourself before you can loosely use the word “liberal” with everything you disagree with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
America is still a Capitalist country with a balance of socialist programs like Social Security, and Medicare to name a few. If anything it’s becoming more a nation under corporatism, not communism, fascism, or Marxism. It’s important to know the differences of these various political programs since America doesn’t evolve weekly with a new “ism” as seen written on protest signs by Tea Baggers.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7260.htm
Hey, Barry, that citation from wikipedia–now that’s authority! If it says so, it must certainly be true.
You wouldn’t understand that your attitude is the product of a left-biased education. Some of us are old enough to know better.
@33. myth buster:
By what authority does a woman have the right to control her own body, or indeed, by what authority does anyone have any rights at all?
If you aren’t familiar with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, educational resources are available at your local library. The authority to control one’s own body is a consequence of the laws of nature. In our current system, it is more specifically a part of the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, part of the Bill of Rights (4th amendment):
Only if they come from God can they be rights, else they be privileges that can be lorded over others and revoked at will.
God has nothing to do with it. God did not write the Constitution. The rights therein are not mere privileges – they are the fundamental rights of men in this nation (despite the attempts by some to revoke them).
As it is, the right to personal autonomy does not extend to using your body or your free agency to kill or maim another person.
That’s not what is at issue here. The issue here is that the government has no right to seize a person or prevent a person from the right to be secure in herself. We have a right to privacy, a right to be secure in our person, and a right to refuse incriminating ourselves. Abortion does not involve killing or maiming another person – it involves a medical procedure to remove a fetus from one’s body. The government has no jurisdiction in the womb, and no means to compel a person to submit.
You can’t force someone to give up the right to be secure in their person against government intrusion.
Peace.
DS
David S. (40.) David, you’re arguing at cross purposes with yourself. The only way rights can be inalienable, as our founders acknowledged, is if they come from God. If there is no higher power, then “rights” are only the product of a consensus and are easily changed as the consensus changes. God has everything to do with it.
DS:”No doubt there are still a lot of bigots in both parties. The difference is that one party courts the bigots, and promotes them as candidates for office – and the other party works to educate and diminish the influence of bigotry. It’s a long term process.” The former would be the Dems and the latter the GOP or did Sen. Bryd switch parties.
And this is rich: “Not at all. That’s the virtue of tolerance – we can all agree to disagree, and leave choices about marriage and health to the people who get married and receive care. Imagine – allowing the people liberty to make their own choices! Must be a blithering utopia.” You are of course joking, right? The left wants people to have choices? Like say, school vouchers, see their own doctors, not to be bussed to some far off school, to own a gun, to not have to live off government largesse for generations, to be able to say a prayer in school or thank God at their graduation??? Choice is NOT what the left wants so try again college boy.
Really DS, you are fun to read. Have you ever had an original thought? I mean, the stuff you post is right from CAP, Moveon or Media Matters. You prove it each time you post because you have ready-made quotes on the topic… So unless you have an insight into what PJM is publishing and can over night get your quotes, you must be getting them from someone else. Alas CAP or MM…
Furthermore to believe in what you post, you have to have a deep-seated hatred for this country. We wonder why??? We wonder how you have survived until O got selected? We wonder how you work-or do you work for such a terrible nation?
And you DS are not liberal either in the classic definition of liberal. You dear dude are a neo-fascists.
Any way I said I would never debate you again and I won’t but I will comment. Much more fun!
“liberal?” Todays left promotes policies straight out of the communist manifesto. Back when the ACLU was founded, Norman Thomas warned leftists to use the terms “liberal” or “progressive” to hide there agenda, also telling them socialist or communist would be terms Americans would never accept. Every Sorosparty agenda item today is straight from Karls Manifesto. Every Sorosparty special interest group (union thugs, carpetbagger blacks, lawyers, academians,KGB media) is also straight out of the commie manifesto. Dont forget Antonio Gramsci, the early 20th century Italian commie who said to destroy a representative republic you had to attack its institutions(family,church,education). So today you see extreme “gay rights” given great latitude. You see political correctnerss with everything except white americans and christianity(Islam is the “religion of peace”-history says otherwise). You see perverts like David Letterman and Roman Polanski being glorified, while Rush Limbaugh cant be the minority owner of an NFL team because hes a “racist”(and Jeremiah Wright isnt?). I for one have never thought of the political left as anything other than what they truly are. Communist freedom haters.
Don’t feed a stupid troll.
#42 BLOTTO,RE:DAVID S(talinist)gets his quotes from radio Havana,and has his special needs teacher translate them for him.However, he is NOT a fascist! He is a Stalinist,like all liberals.My previous comments about him and vivo were censored by a limp wristed, poltoonish PJM censor, who probably works for that other collaborationist cretin,senator McCain.
Hey, guys, I appreciate your support, but let’s don’t lower ourselves to the level of the left. And remember, they’re not liberals, they’re leftists. If you keep on calling them liberals I wrote this article in vain.
No matter how the left tries to spin their ideology as promoting freedom, by definition it does the opposite. Modern “liberalism” clearly sees government as the solution to virtually all social problems. The root word of “government” is “govern,” which means “to control.” Thus, the more government we have, the more we are controlled. The less government we have, the more personal liberty we enjoy. The Founders certainly understood this, as did true American Liberals like H.D. Thoreau, who famously said “That government is best which governs least.”
Yep, just like how you big-government, rights-erasing water-carriers have the nerve to call yourselves conservative when you’ve supported the most radical attack on our justice system and foreign policy in three decades. Tell you what, if the liberals rename themselves, will you go by your proper name? Authoritarians.
Absolutely right on, Mr. Jenkins. I have this argument all the time with the socialists who call them selves, and who vote, Democrat.
I enjoyed the article, David, and I agree wholeheartedly–language is indeed a crucial component in shaping the issues and the debate on where this country is headed. We have played defense for way too long on this front.
Words are weapons. The Pro-Regressives have been quite successful at waging word war. They’ve been more organized than we have ever been when it comes to the nitty-gritty of culture battles. How much longer is it going to take for us to get our act together?
The ACORN scandal does gives me hope though. If two 20 Somethings could do a little undercover journalism and ultimately eviscerate the ACORN Mafioso, then we could certainly create a political/social lexicon than could effectively slash the deceptive jargon and false fronts of American Neo-Marxists.
So what are our next steps in this battle?
JD
qwfwq:
Hey, Barry, that citation from wikipedia–now that’s authority! If it says so, it must certainly be true.
Hey qwfwq, I did a fact check on the accuracy of Wikipedia and it turns out that at least that one entire page on Google links independant studies on that very topic. Ironically they all agreed that Wikipedia was evenly matched against the Enclopedia Britanica for accuracy and factual content.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-14-nature-wiki_x.htm
“You wouldn’t understand that your attitude is the product of a left-biased education. Some of us are old enough to know better”.
Don’t confuse education with ignorance.
Following is a Jewish rant from a Jewish web site in Israel.
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2009/10/13/crunch-time-for-health-care-now-its-up-to-us/comment-page-3/#comment-39882
Amazing that about 90 percent of it is true:
DON’T TRUST OUTSIDER OPINION
Who is Obama? Barack Obama is less of a person than an image— a brand. People see whatever they want as they do on a Rorschach test. But does anyone really know him?
In fact, he is: An empty suit. A man who was deserted in childhood by his biological father. A man whose birth records,both in the United States and Kenya, are sealed by government order. his childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, spied on the U.S. military installations in Hawaii for the Soviet Union, edited a communist newspaper, authored pornographic novels, and wrote poetry in praise of Joseph Stalin.
A man mentored by and still supported by radical Muslims. A man who promised transparency in government, but has spent over a million dollars in legal fees hiding information that would determine his eligibility to be President. A former drug user. A man whose academic records are sealed from kindergarten through law school. A man who arrived in New York in June of 1981 without enough money to get a hotel room, but one month later flew to Indonesia and Pakistan.
Why did he go? Who paid his expenses? A man who traveled to Pakistan when it was illegal for U.S.citizens to do so. So what country’s passport did he use? A man whose Law School Admission Test scores and grades at Columbia University are known to have been mediocre, but was admitted to Harvard Law School through the intervention of a Saudi named Khalid al-Mansour.
A law review editor who never published an article in any law review. A lawyer with no significant accomplishments in the law and no reputation in the legal community. A former State and U.S. Senator, who never authored a piece of legislation. A disciple of the Marxist Saul Alinsky.
A product of the Chicago political machine—the most corrupt political organization in America. A man who selects Marxists, corrupt politicians, and criminals as his close political associates and personal friends. A man whose presidential candidacy was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, the Socialist International, and the Workers International League.
A man lauded for the literary brilliance of two memoirs, both of which were ghostwritten by others. A so-called Christian who says that knowing when human life begins is “ above his pay-grade,” but somehow knows that abortion is permissible at any stage. A man who thinks “waterboarding” is immoral, but that partial-birth abortion is moral. A man who publicly laments slavery in America—which was abolished 150 years ago—but praises Islam, which still practices both slavery and the sexual mutilation of young girls.
A man who speaks endlessly about helping the less fortunate, but gives almost none of his sizable income to charity—not even to his half-brother, who is living in squalor in Kenya. A man who had the most left-wing voting record in the United State Senate, but was predicted by the press to “govern from the middle.” A man who has never created a job, met a payroll, or even operated a lemonade stand, but wants to tell Detroit how to make cars. A President who has never before served as an executive in either the private or the public sector.
A Commander-in-Chief who doesn’t know how to shoot a rifle, throw a hand-grenade, drive a tank, fly a plane, or navigate a ship. A Commander-in-Chief who has publicly divulged some of our nation’s most important intelligence secrets.
A man who has been put in charge of the largest economic engine that ever existed, but has never invested in the stock market and admits total ignorance of it. A President who says that science will guide his administration , but has no education in the sciences.
A man who is proficient in reading what is written for him on a teleprompter, but jerks and stammers his way through any off-the-cuff speaking. A man whose health records are sealed from childhood to the present day.
A man who spent 20 years in a church whose pastor espouses Marxist Liberation Theology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Semitism, but claims he never heard his pastor utter anti-American, and anti-Semitic statements. A man who added more to the National Debt in 120 days than all other Presidents did in the past 220 years, yet feels qualified to lecture Americans about “fiscal responsibility”.
A man who publicly expressed disdain for the U.S. Constitution on a Chicago radio station because it limited the government’s ability to “ redistribute wealth.” The first American President to bow before a foreign head of state—a Muslim dictator. A man who sits and listens submissively while his country is castigated by Daniel Ortega—a Communist thug whose own daughter accused him of raping her. A narcissist who gave the Queen of England a present from the United States – – an iPod containing recordings of his own speeches.
A so-called Christian who officially declared “Pride Month” for a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination. A man who wanted Americans to ignore his Muslim name during his election campaign, yet boasts of his Muslim name when he travels to Muslim countries. A man who can name hundreds of America’s shortcomings, yet none of its great accomplishments.
A President who claims the moral high ground by closing Gitmo yet supports the transfer of terror suspects to countries where horrific torture is certain. A President who scoffed at being called a socialist yet acted to nationalize the auto industry, the banking industry, and the insurance industry . . . and now seeks to nationalize the healthcare industry.
A President who violates private property rights, the sanctity of contracts, and the rule of law—three essential principles that go back over a thousand years in the Common Law tradition. A man who promised 95% of all Americans a tax cut, but is increasing taxes on 100% of the population through inflation—the cruelest tax of all. A lawyer who represented ACORN—an organization now indicted in several states for voter fraud—whose stated goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible in order to destroy our financial system.
A President who cheated GM’s bondholders by giving their property to the UAW in a political payoff. An American President who frequently criticizes his own country when speaking in foreign countries, but never praises America ’s generosity, goodness or greatness.
A President whose Secretary of the Treasury cheated on his taxes—as did several other appointees and advisors. A President who, despite the current federal debt of over 10 trillion dollars, wants to add the greatest debt ever by nationalizing healthcare.
A President who scoffs at being called a socialist, yet has appointed 28 “Czars” to circumvent constitutional government, including: 1) A “Science Czar” who has advocated compulsory abortions for American women and the “surrender of sovereignty” to a “comprehensive Planetary Regime.” 2) A self-professed communist as his “Green Jobs Czar”. 3) A “Pay Czar” to regulate the pay of corporate executives. A President who swore an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” yet has nominated a domestic enemy of the Constitution to the Supreme Court. A President whose Home land Security Chief classified pro-lifers, veterans, and supporters of traditional marriage as terrorists. A President who stood silent while the Iranian government hacked unarmed protestors to death with axes, because it was an internal matter, but freely offers his opinions about the internal affairs of Israel and Honduras. A President who decreed that true acts of terrorism must now be described as “man-made disasters.”
A President who cracks hurtful jokes about Special Olympians. A President who refused to intercept or inspect a North Korean ship virtually certain to be carrying Weapons of Mass Destruction to Myanmar (Burma). A President who wants to cancel all missile defenses while rogue nations are developing long-range ballistic missiles.
An American President who blames the violence in Mexico on America. A Commander in Chief who claims to have been unaware that Air Force One was taken on a terrifying, low-level photo-op over Manhattan. A President who berates American CEO’s for flying in private planes at private expense on company business, but whose wife spends hundreds of thousands tax payer dollars flying to Paris for a shopping spree.
A President who promised a transparent administration, but requires all questions be screened before “impromptu” appearances. A man who freely admitted that his energy policies are designed to bankrupt the American coal industry. A President who has presided over the loss of 14.7 million jobs and whose “energy policy” will cause the loss of another 1 million jobs. A President whose “energy policy” will increase the average American’s utility bills by over $2,000 a year in the middle of the Great Recession.
A man about whom liberal journalist Tom Brokaw said, “There’s a lot about him we don’t know.” … just one week before the election. The vast majority of Americans do not know who he is, but someone surely does. Someone paid for his travel expenses to Pakistan and Indonesia. Someone engineered legal challenges to all of his election opponents for the State Senate and had them disqualified.
Someone straightened and leveled his path to the U.S. Senate when a Democrat Judge made public the child custody records of his Republican opponent. When he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate, someone arranged for him to speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Someone saw to it that all of his records were sealed, both at home and abroad. Someone assembled the massive organization for his run for the Presidency. SOMEONE KNOWS ALL ABOUT HIM…..
This is one of my pet peeves. Liberals aren’t liberal, except with other peoples’ money. Progressives aren’t progressive. Their policies lead to Socialism and dictatorships, hardly progress. People for the American Way are more interested in suppressing free speech. The American Civil Liberties Union works ceaselessly to destroy tolerance and respect for the beliefs of others. And Democrats certainly don’t seem to want to hear from the people much if their reaction to current polls and the Tea Parties and town halls is any indication. Demagogues and Oligarchs fit much better.
The best term for describing these people is “statist” which I’ve noticed appearing more often in columns lately.
Mr. Jenkins: Hurrah! And lots of luck.
For two years I have been a voice in the wilderness on precisely your theme: Stop useng “liberal”, “left”, “Leftist”, Progressive” “Centrist”. Call them what they are: Socialist, Marxist, Communist, Stalinist, Maoist. My preference is for “Reds”, but here again they have, through the device of the vote-return m maps, turned themselves into the Blues and stuck the rustics with red.
Whether Norman Thomas actually said it or words were put in his mouth, the prophesy that under the name of “liberalism, the socialists would take over the nation without the proletariat even knowing it was coming true. Just as it did in Canada, although Trudeau took a slower schedule.
It is amazing. The American Socialist party is moribund, its membership at its lowest level since its found 100 years ago. They don’t even run candidates for dog-catcher locally any ore. In the meantime, in Europe, the Communists have virtually disappeared but at least the Socialist are open – cll themselves the Democrat-Socialists, or Socialist-Democrats, or just plain Socialists.
The GOP threw away the last election because they didn’t confront Obama with his strong Communist ties, even though the vidence was freely available in Chicago public records.
It is incomprehensible to me why the conservatives writers, journalists academics, commentators or bloggers continue to use “leftist”, “left-leaning”, “radical-left” or “hard-left” and, deliberately, refrain from the definitive and truly descriptive terms they should be using. How anyone of reasonable intelligence can look, even casually, into Obama’s background and conclude that he is anything other than a Flaming Red just like his venerated father and his patron, Bill Ayers, is incredible to me. “He says he isn’t and you can’t prove it”. !!!!
I have come to the conclusion that they don’t want to be called “McCarthyites”, feel that they will be identified as loony redneck rubes.
By whom? By the loony Reds. It is a form of moral cowardice, highly comparable to refusal to write or speak ill of a primitive, orthodoxicaally intolerant Islam. As the British satirical wartime song said, “lease don’t be beastly to the Huns.”
In the same vein, they never mention Robert Mugabe, who brought Hope and Change to Zimbabwe, displaced all white folk, took over the press, destroyed the printing presses of those who continued to dare print criticism, purged what had been a balanced Supreme Court. All within the last two decades, not fifty years ago.
I’m with you. It is IMPORTANT that we refuse to let Communists hide behind wimpy, innocuous terms life “liberal” or “left”. The word Communist is accurate. The evidence is hard. The only reason Van Jones got fired was that he was so dumb that he had openly identified himself as a communist. Being one, but calling yourself “liberal” makes you a welcome member of the Administration; just don’t admit it.
THE REDS HAVE LANDED! THE REDS HAVE LANDED! – in the White House. Stop with the pussy-footing already!
.
BINGO!
And, it’s about damn time. If you want the proper term for the current administration run by a bunch of old hippies, it is “radical” and “irresponsible,” or “rebels without a clue.”
Why call the people who believe in advancing the cause of individual freedom, and personal empowerment through responsible action, conservative, or neo-con? Why call people dedicated to using the government to crush individual freedom Liberal?
I prefer the moniker ‘commie-baby killers’. It’s more descriptive, and more accurate. And ‘commie’ is more catchy than Maoist or Stalinist.
qwfwq:
Hey, Barry, that citation from wikipedia–now that’s authority! If it says so, it must certainly be true.
Just out of curiosity do you believe the Rush Limbaugh so called quotes from Wickiquotes?
Right on the money, Mr. Jenkins. I stopped calling them “liberal” and “progressives” more than a decade ago and simply refer to them as leftists, socialists, and statists. And the harder terms should be considered fair game, as well, since they fit so many on the left.
We shouldn’t concede an inch to these people in the public. They should be called what they are, and if we’re challenged, then we should explain exactly why they deserve these labels. In doing so, the majority of the country won’t see these labels as being unreasonable and it will put the statists on the defensive, which is where they should be kept.
I was always troubled by the color-coding of the political parties (red-states/blue-states). I wanted to know why Democrats were not itdentified as red, since their philosophy was closer to communism, which was always identified as red. Turns out that the colors were designated by network news. Originally Red was for Dems and Blue was for Conservatives. That was switch because the libs in network news felt uncomfortable with the red designation for democrats. Hit a little too close to home, so they switched it.
Moho- are you serious about the “conservatives are authoritarian”? We are fighting for smaller government, and more personal freedom and liberty. How is that authoritarian?
Dear David S…
You were critisized in the course of this discussion, because you are obviously passionate about your beliefs and have done your research. There is nothing wrong with having a strong understanding of what you believe and having quotes to support it readily at hand. Whether you found these quotes yourself or you obtained them from a source you trust doesn’t matter.
However, you mix information with insult, derision and sarcasm. If you want to win hearts and minds, present facts to support your beliefs and leave the negativity to the trolls. It is not insulting to say you DISAGREE with someone’s information, beliefs or conclusions.
Having said that, I DISAGREE with just about everything you say.
First of all, SOCIETY should determine the laws and mores of this country. SOCIETY includes everyone from athiests to evangelical Christians. An evangelical Christian should have just as much to say about what is right and what is wrong as you do. I think murder is wrong (this is Biblical!)… what do you think?
Logically and scientifically, you can’t argue with the statement “life begins at conception”. Politically, you can argue till the cows come home. At conception, you have an entity with its own DNA that left alone, will be born a human being.
Whether a woman, or a man, has control over her own body is extremely debateable. A woman can’t take illicit drugs or commit suicide legally. A woman can’t sell her own kidney even though the proceeds would lift her out of poverty.
We can make arguments against each other’s beliefs or world view all day. If we stop insulting each other, maybe we can find common ground where we can progress.
Beauxdog
25. David S.
I agree with David S here. It doesn’t help to call people on the left for Marxists unless they actually are. The change to society democrats are putting through at the moment is much more subtle than Marxism. It’s moving toward a society where everybody is alike, nobody is exceptional, all is bland. But in a way that is very different from the internal images we have of USSR and North Korea. It will come sneaking through the back door in a way where nobody take notice. Even people that call themselves conservatives will eventually defend the systems that are being set up at the moment, the same way many conservatives now are defending Medicare. Most people don’t appreciate when middle of the road liberals are called Marxists because it doesn’t match up with what they are actually seeing. The Marxist term is not accurate enough to be taken serious. There are exceptions though – Van Jones, Barack Obama, Bill Ayers etc. are real Marxists but most of Congress is not.
19. Jim Baker:
“As an aside, congratulations vivo! You have successfully first-posted on these threads at least 1000 times. For all you Republicans out there, there is political significance to this and vivo knows it. vivo, don’t say I never said anything good about you.”
That sounds like a high number to me, but to you it feels like a thousand. Political significance? This is a group of people who are outspoken and have firm beliefs; unfortunately, they are selfish and look down at the non-believers. Their credo is ‘the Sun revolves around the Earth’. The Earth is flat and those near the edges can fall anytime they want.
20. Dave Jenkins:
“Thanks, Vivo. This was a far more worthy critique. However, you’re still dodging the issues,”
You said your piece, I said my piece.
Hasta la vista, baby!
Don’t expect the Left to relinquish the semantic weapon without a fight. More, they hold the bigger guns in this contest: the mass media. Like it or not, Americans mostly get their rhetorical and terminological context from the Main Stream Media, and we all know whose side they’re on.
Therefore, if we’re to reach a position of equality in the semantic struggle, it will be necessary to defang the Main Stream Media. Recent strokes in that battle have been indecisive, despite the MSM’s befouling of its position by refusing to report on events that tend away from their preferences. More hard thought is required here…and much more hard effort afterward.
ReNae:
“Just out of curiosity do you believe the Rush Limbaugh so called quotes from Wickiquotes?”
I believe a person can be quoted just like I am here by responding to your question.
#62VIVO re#19: So you’ve first- posted 1000 times? Big deal! Trolling’s not difficult for the non-working.welfare -dependent.Besides, 0 multiplied by 1000 or any other number ,is still zero.
#48 MOHO Raved:”Just like you big-government,rights-erasing water carriers have the nerve to call yourselves conservatives when you’ve supported the most radical attack on our justice system and foreign policy in three decades”. Last time I checked,the WACO massacre was perpetrated by Clinton,as was the release of convicted terrorists so wifey could pick up votes of members of the NY Puerto Rican community. The kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez so that he could re-inhabit the liberal,sorry Stalinist, paradise in Cuba was also a liberal affair.As are other legal outrages, such as legalized anti-White racism,(affirmative action),and the incoming attempts to censor talk radio through diversity of ownership.No MOHO, Jenkins has you clowns exact.By the way MOHO, who erased YOUR brain?SCRATCH A LIBERAL,FIND A STALINIST!
#25 DAVID S DAVID S defecated”:Please, by all means keep calling your fellow Americans Stalinists for supporting freedom of speech,freedom of conscience,and freedom from the imposition of religious mores”. This is classic Stalinist disinformation, in full Orwellian”War is Peace”mode.” Freedom of Speech?”You mean like campus speech codes, hate speech legislation, and the liberal harassment of conservative political magazines through IRS audits David?How about using the FCC to destroy talk radio by forcing”diversity” of ownwership? You dissembling little slug!;”Freedom of conscience!”An absolutely surreal statement for a supporter of Castro’s gulag state.”Freedom from Government imposition of religious mores”.Really?How about freedom from the imposition of statist mores such as reverse discrimination, forced busing,welfare dependency,socialized medicine,and all the other failed shibboleths that constitute the religion of the Totalitarian State?The crypto in” crypto Stalinist” is failing David,as is your Castro wannabee,Obama the dweeb. You and your fellow Stalinists are going to have to ramp up the repression,to compensate for the failure of your arguments,losing your pathetic little figleaves, and revealing yourselves for the vicious totalitarians that you all are.
Steve: Wow! Thanks for the harangue on Obama… I reference the one that is long enough to be written on a complete roll of toilet paper. You must have compiled and digested every myth, BS, smear, and non-fact on Obama ever. It must have been building up in you for years. Anyway, I’m glad you got it out of your system. And really, go ahead and use the whole roll if needed. I don’t believe in conserving resources either when it comes to something like personal health.
deguello:
Ask your doctor if being admitted to a mental facility is right for you.
@60. Beauxdog:
First, my thanks for your civil and respectful reply. This is a breath of fresh air after the typically shrill response most PJM commenters offer me. As you noted, the insults, derision and sarcasm have inspired me to occasionally respond in kind. On the other hand, my posts are generally respectful and fact based, and I work to maintain a level of civility as well. I’ll do my best to take your advice on moderating my tone.
On to our disagreements…
First of all, SOCIETY should determine the laws and mores of this country. SOCIETY includes everyone from athiests to evangelical Christians. An evangelical Christian should have just as much to say about what is right and what is wrong as you do. I think murder is wrong (this is Biblical!)… what do you think?
I don’t think that anyone should have a right to make their religious beliefs the basis of the law. That’s why we have rights and protections, and an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the government from making such laws.
Logically and scientifically, you can’t argue with the statement “life begins at conception”.
Sure I can. You appear to be claiming that the egg and sperm are not alive before conception, which is an odd argument. I don’t think you can make a great distinction here.
Politically, you can argue till the cows come home. At conception, you have an entity with its own DNA that left alone, will be born a human being.
Actually, at conception you have an entity that, left alone, might or might not implant in the uterine lining – if it is “left alone”, and doesn’t hitch a ride on the uterus, it ceases to exist as an entity. If it does implant, then it is no longer “left alone” – it is a dependent entity.
Whether a woman, or a man, has control over her own body is extremely debateable.
No, not really. It is a pretty well established right, and it is spelled out plainly in the Constitution (see above). As a practical matter, it is not really debatable at all. As a legal matter there are conditions, but they are quite limited.
A woman can’t take illicit drugs or commit suicide legally.
Actually, most illicit drugs can be obtained legally under limited circumstances. And in the state I live in, physicians can provide lethal drugs for the purpose of hastening death (legal suicide). So a woman can take illicit drugs or commit suicide legally under some circumstances.
A woman can’t sell her own kidney even though the proceeds would lift her out of poverty.
True enough. But she can offer her womb for rent, or sell her unfertilized eggs to lift her out of poverty.
We can make arguments against each other’s beliefs or world view all day. If we stop insulting each other, maybe we can find common ground where we can progress.
Yes, we can make arguments all day. I think the problem with finding common ground on abortion is that opponents have an absolutist view that any and all abortions are bad, and fail to understand the many and varied reasons that this procedure is employed. The current state of law, which allows women to make this decision in consultation with their medical provider, seems to me the only tenable position. There is no reasonable basis here for the government to interfere in the privacy of a patient-doctor relationship. But that’s just my opinion, as supported by the Constitution and logic.
What do you think would constitute an acceptable solution? Maybe we can find some more common ground.
Peace.
DS
David S – your opinions are just that, opinions, and unsubstantiated by facts or logical argumentation.
I agree with beauxdog’s comments – note that he isn’t simply stating an opinion but making a logical argument for that opinion. As he noted, it is shallow to define abortion as meaning the woman has control over her own body; this is empirically invalad. The embryo is not ‘her body’ but the body of another human being. That is a fact; it is how, biologically, our species reproduces itself.
Equally, as others have pointed out, the term ‘progressive’ is not about progress, implying a ‘better future’. It is a statist agenda, seeking to reduce individual freedom and insert state authority.
By the way, vivo, I find it odd that you didn’t critique the first definition”
“Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.”
Do you think that ‘established’ is semantically equivalent to ‘authoritarian’ or to ‘dogmatic’ or to bigoted’?
And you are hardly tolerant of other’s ideas! See, for example, your first comment.
And being in favor of ‘reform’ is hardly a desirable quality unless one insists that the current state of existence is always deficient.
Sharon – calling someone a ‘birther’ because they want to know Obama’s birth and educational records is disingenuous. After all, these are valid records of achievement and it is odd that Obama refuses to release them.
The term ‘deather’ is a red herring to obscure the very real problem of inadequate funds to care for the elderly.
I’m sure you don’t want to get into other conspiracy themes, held by the ‘left’, of the 9/11 attacks, of Jews controlling the world, and so on.
As pointed out, the left is about top-down authoritarian control, reducing the rights of the individual. Jenkins article is exactly right. Thanks for it.
David S: since you claim to be interested in rational argument, I’ll take you at your word and offer a rational critique of your first comment #25. First of all, I should say that I do not define myself either “conservative” or “liberal”, neither in the American nor in the radically different European meaning of the words (though I have some sympathy for American conservatism and European liberalism).
You tried calling people liberals as a smear, and people eventually came to realize that they agreed with what the liberals were advocating.
“You” presumably being US conservatives. The fact is, it was the American “left” that started calling themselves “liberal”. Conservatives started using “liberal” as a smear (stupidly) only when the American people realized that they did NOT agree with what the “liberals” were saying.
The GOP cannot call itself liberal – because it is not.
To the best of my knowledge, the GOP does not call itself “liberal”, so this sentence is fatuous. But guess what? some Europeans call the GOP “ultra-liberal”.
The GOP does not support progress – it is a conservative party that supports moneyed interests at the expense of the people, religious mores being written into law
The bit about moneyed interests sounds like Marxist propaganda, and only a Marxist could believe that “religious mores written into law” could be in the interest of the rich; so you are on shaky grounds when you claim not to be a Marxist yourself (independently of your party).
You can’t claim the mantle of conservatism and also claim to be a liberal – they are not compatible impulses.
And this is rational argument? I call it proof by assertion. BTW since when is politics based on “impulses”?
Pro-life is one of the biggest jokes – the anti-abortion movement is not pro-life, it is pro-forced birth.
It is a pity that you chose to put it this way. You would have a strong case saying that the “liberals” really are pro-choice and the conservatives really are anti-choice, contrary to what the author says. But you would have a hard time arguing rationally that being against abortion is not being pro-life.
@71. ETAB:
your opinions are just that, opinions, and unsubstantiated by facts or logical argumentation.
Perhaps you missed the content of my post? I made some factual observations to back up my rather concise and clearly laid out argument.
I agree with beauxdog’s comments – note that he isn’t simply stating an opinion but making a logical argument for that opinion. As he noted, it is shallow to define abortion as meaning the woman has control over her own body; this is empirically invalad.
The logical argument is that the Constitutional right to be secure in one’s person is not invalidated by the religious beliefs of others, and cannot be, because it is a Constitutional right. It is not “shallow” to define abortion in terms of women’s rights. That is exactly what we are debating – whether women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies.
The embryo is not ‘her body’ but the body of another human being. That is a fact; it is how, biologically, our species reproduces itself.
The embryo is a dependent entity. Women have the absolute right to have embryos removed from their bodies.
Equally, as others have pointed out, the term ‘progressive’ is not about progress, implying a ‘better future’. It is a statist agenda, seeking to reduce individual freedom and insert state authority.
On one hand, you are arguing that the state should have the authority to interfere in the medical decisions of women and their doctors, while on the other hand you want to claim that my agenda is statist. You contradict yourself. Individual freedom means that the state does not tell doctors how to treat their patients. This is progressive, because it recognizes that women are not the property of the state or of their husbands/lovers/rapists. They are individuals with the right to self determination, hard won through many centuries of sacrifice.
Peace.
DS
#69 Barry welcome to PJM libtard troll! You can stay and you can play, you can even defecate(your Post)but only until you’ve taken your penicillin.VD is not only bad for you,it’s hell on your readers.BTW;stay away from the NAMBLA-sponsored kiddie sex tours of Thailand and avoid reinfection.
David S – again, you are providing your opinions but without logical argumentation.
Agreeing with or not agreeing with abortion is not, de facto, a religious belief. Therefore, your statement about the constitutional right to be ‘secure in one’s person’ has nothing to do with religion.
I consider that it is shallow to define abortion in terms of women’s rights, because this ignores the right of the embryo to be ‘secure in its person’. It also ignores the rights of the father.
Your statement that because the embryo is a ‘dependent body’ and that therefore, women have the ‘absolute right to have embryos removed from their bodies’ is your opinion. You provide no argument to justify it as an ‘absolute right’.
It is a biological fact that our species reproduces by embryo and defining that embryonic member of our species as akin to a tumour or growth ignores this biological reality.
Furthermore, if your definition of the embryo is its dependency..well, children are dependent on adult care for at least 10 and more years. Do you consider that they too should be ‘removed’?
No, abortion is not a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. You are forgetting that there are TWO other people involved. The father and the child. They have rights as well, with also, the ‘right to self-determination’.
@72. Snorri Godhi:
Conservatives started using “liberal” as a smear (stupidly) only when the American people realized that they did NOT agree with what the “liberals” were saying.
Given the topic of the article, it’s the GOP habit of calling Democrats “liberal” that is at issue. What Democrats call themselves is their business – but the GOP has been making a concerted effort to use the word liberal as part of the “tax and spend liberals” meme. Whether the American people agree with the Democrats is a separate issue – and the last election is pretty good evidence.
To the best of my knowledge, the GOP does not call itself “liberal”, so this sentence is fatuous.
I was trying to address the article’s contention. The author proposes that the GOP should try to co-opt the term liberal.
The bit about moneyed interests sounds like Marxist propaganda, and only a Marxist could believe that “religious mores written into law” could be in the interest of the rich; so you are on shaky grounds when you claim not to be a Marxist yourself (independently of your party).
Your preconceptions about Marxism are not my concern. You could just as easily call me a libertarian. I support religious freedom for all, which means the government does not favor any religion. I also support economic freedom for all, which means the government does not favor any particular economic actors.
“You can’t claim the mantle of conservatism and also claim to be a liberal – they are not compatible impulses.”
And this is rational argument? I call it proof by assertion. BTW since when is politics based on “impulses”?
It’s not proof by assertion – the proof is in the definition of the terms. Conservatives oppose change – liberals advocate for change. That’s a diametric opposition.
“Pro-life is one of the biggest jokes – the anti-abortion movement is not pro-life, it is pro-forced birth.”
It is a pity that you chose to put it this way. You would have a strong case saying that the “liberals” really are pro-choice and the conservatives really are anti-choice, contrary to what the author says. But you would have a hard time arguing rationally that being against abortion is not being pro-life.
Being against abortion is ok – just don’t have one. The problem is that being against legal abortion is being in favor of the state acting to force women to give birth against their will. That’s not pro-life – that’s totalitarianism. There is no room for the government between a woman and her doctor.
I think the argument against abortion should be advanced by addressing the hearts and minds of women, and advocating that they make their choice with wisdom. This is the path that can succeed – legislative efforts to restrict abortion rights will always be doomed to failure. I am pro-choice – but I don’t mind if you make a different choice, as long as I can make mine.
Peace.
DS
David S: your style of arguing seems to be to get into the details and lose sight of the big picture. In your first comment, you decided that attack is the best defense — which is a sound principle in war, but in rational argument it leads to the tu quoque fallacy. The MAIN point of the article, right or wrong, is that American “liberals” are not liberals, or to be more precise, that they do not believe in liberty. That American conservatives are liberals, right or wrong, is a peripheral point (but one with which many Europeans would strongly agree). You have not presented any facts or arguments against the author’s MAIN point. Instead, you have stated that American conservatives are not liberals, without presenting any sound argument in support of your statement. FYI definitions are not argument, and anyway your definition of “liberal” [someone who "advocates for change"] is arbitrary and un-historical.
You might be a libertarian, but your way of thinking is still Marxist; so you do not fit into the Democratic party for 2 different reasons: most of them are neither libertarians nor Marxists.
The rest of your reply is irrelevant to the points that I tried to make. I note, however, that, contrary to what you think, being pro-life and being totalitarian are not logically incompatible.
Fine, call them Rudderless Revisionists. For they know what they don’t want, and that is the legacy of the “Dead White Males”.
@77. Snorri Godhi:
Thanks for the constructive criticism on my argumentation. Noted.
The MAIN point of the article, right or wrong, is that American “liberals” are not liberals, or to be more precise, that they do not believe in liberty.
The main point is not supported with any evidence. The author makes an assertion that “the “reforms” advocated by so-called “liberals” may appear on the surface to advance individual freedom and do in fact often advance license, which is not the same thing.” But he doesn’t provide even one supporting example.
I would argue that liberals support freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of association and other individual freedoms that are central to democracy, and have been threatened by conservatives. The ACLU is a great example of an organization devoted to civil liberties – and also a liberal standby. The author has not made his case at all, much less convincingly.
You have not presented any facts or arguments against the author’s MAIN point. Instead, you have stated that American conservatives are not liberals, without presenting any sound argument in support of your statement.
The GOP has supported torture, the suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretaps, and “free speech zones”. The party does not support the liberal project of expanding and protecting individual liberty as embodied in the Constitution.
FYI definitions are not argument, and anyway your definition of “liberal” [someone who "advocates for change"] is arbitrary and un-historical.
I’m happy to use the author’s definition. The result is the same.
You might be a libertarian, but your way of thinking is still Marxist; so you do not fit into the Democratic party for 2 different reasons: most of them are neither libertarians nor Marxists.
You claim that my way of thinking is Marxist – but you still have not defined what you mean, or what exactly is Marxist in my thinking. How can you make such a bold claim? How is defending the rights of individuals marxist?
The rest of your reply is irrelevant to the points that I tried to make. I note, however, that, contrary to what you think, being pro-life and being totalitarian are not logically incompatible.
Of course they are not logically incompatible – in fact, a pro-life person who believes they can legislate their preference is a totalitarian. But not all pro-life people wish to use the state to impose their preference. Some are willing to accept that this is a choice, and advocate on that basis.
Peace.
DS
David S – I’m afraid others are getting the better of you in this debate, ebcause they are sticking to proper, accepted debate-techniques. This, you have had the decency to acknowledge.
I would weigh in here to say that the Right has not defined the Left, just as the author asserts. When the term Progressive became a bad word decades ago, they started calling themselves Liberals. It was odd in the last election to hear Clinton (and other Dems) saying she “prefers to call herself a Progressive”! I guess enough time has passed that the stink of the term has also passed. The fart has left the room.
Conservatives chose to call themselves that, because the Left had co-opted the term “Liberals”. Yes, we support the traditional view, but that traditional view is that of the ultra-radical America. Our Founding Fathers were true radical revolutionaries bent on true freedom, which they achieved.
Calvin Coolidge put it best when he said that we believe our rights come from God. That is final. Anything else is not progress, but moving backwards. (Not exact quote.) Those who would dismantle this limited government in favor of greater government are regressives, not the lying term “Progressives”. During the cold War, any nation with People or Democratic in its name never was for the people nor democratic. [example: DDR (East Germany) Deutches Demokratische Republik = People's Democratic Republic]
I suggest the following term for the Liberals, Statists, Socialists, et al: Governmentalists. The argument is about greater governemnt versus lesser government. As has so often been bandied about on talking head shows:
1) “Why do you people not trust government?” (Michael Moore)
2) “Do you not believe that there is not a role for government to do good?” (Bob Beckel)
Answers: 1) Are you serious? Are you insane? How gullible do you think we are? 2) No. Do your good with your own money, not mine! Don’t bankrupt my country so you can feel good about yourself for “doing good”. Don’t soak the rich to do good. Go get rich yourself and do good with your own damned money. Hands off mine (and my kids’)!
Governmentalists. It’s about power. There are plenty of true believers out there supporting the feel-good policies. Soviets called them useful idiots… and purged them from their own country. Once they’d taken power, the useful idiots (true believers) were a danger to the new power structure, as they would actually insist on the feel-good agenda, rather than the raw power the leaders pursued.
To the author: some of this looks suspiciously like you lifted whole paragraphs from some of my previous comments on this site… but it’s all good. I also appreciate you responding to some of the comments here and actually moderating. Good for you.
David S, here’s what (I think) David J. means by the difference between liberty and license:
I’ve noticed for years that when people on the left talk about freedom, they’re almost always talking about sexual freedom–the freedom to have sex with whomever they please and not to suffer any consequences (such as “unwanted” pregnancy). In other words, for the left the most important freedom appears to be sexual freedom, complete sexual freedom with no restrictions, otherwise known as license or licentiousness. Look at the left’s signature issues–abortion and “gay marriage”–the filth that constantly pours out of left-dominated Hollywood, and the push within the left-dominated education establishment to teach graphic sex-education courses to young children and distribute condoms in our schools.
Yet every civilized society in history has placed restrictions on sexual freedom, mainly for the protection of women and children. When those restrictions begin to erode, societies gradually become less civilized and eventually die out (cf. ancient Greece, ancient Rome, modern-day California).
On the other hand, when people on the right talk about freedom or liberty, they generally mean those freedoms specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights–the right to own property, to bear arms, to speak one’s mind on any subject. Those things, not sexual freedom, are what the Founders meant by “liberty”–yet it appears plain to me that the left does not believe in any of them. To wit: Obama’s stated desire to “redistribute wealth”; the left’s long history of attacks on gun ownership; and repressive, leftist-driven campus speech codes.
So there are your concrete examples. You might not agree with our premise, but that’s what we’re talking about. What the left calls “freedom” we call license; what we call freedom, the left calls greed, beligerence, and hate speech.
71. ETAB:
“And you are hardly tolerant of other’s ideas! See, for example, your first comment.”
Pretty much NOBODY is tolerant in this site. Yes, that includes me. Very few have a conversation, it’s all whining and pointing. Are we smarter than a 5th grader?
I didn’t think so.
You have some good points occasionally, maybe some day we’ll ‘tolerate’ something.
If independence is the criterion that the right to life is based in, then logically, one can slaughter any invalid or welfare recipient without penalty. Besides the sheer absurdity of that logic, it reduces human beings to the level of property. A fetus is not the property of its mother, cf the 13th Amendment. Also, David, it is you who needs to reread the Declaration of Independence, because apparently you missed the “Endowed by their Creator,” phrase. Since you reject that premise, you also reject the rest of the line.
Lastly, it is no more totalitarian to ban abortion than it is to ban and enforce the ban on any other form of homicide. Prohibiting homicide and punishing it harshly, including executing those who commit premeditated murder or solicit the same, is justice, and it is the primary reason for the government to exist. If the government refuses to punish homicide, it is an unjust government, and ought to be disbanded.
Hi David:
The main point is not supported with any evidence. [...] I would argue that liberals support freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of association and other individual freedoms
Sure liberals do that: that is the reason why American “liberals” are illiberal. Good point about the article not presenting evidence, but made too late: other comments have already debunked your claims about freedom of speech etc. I myself happened to be in Denmark at the time of the Cartoon Jihad. I could not help noticing the difference between American “liberals” and European liberals. Actually, even European socialists were more liberal than American “liberals”.
I’m happy to use the author’s definition [of liberalism]. The result is the same.
No, the result is NOT the same, which is why many Europeans call the GOP “ultra-liberal”. And anyway you have not taken note that definitions do not make an argument.
You claim that my way of thinking is Marxist – but you still have not defined what you mean, or what exactly is Marxist in my thinking.
You are still hung up on definitions. What is Marxist in your thinking is, obviously, expressed in your sentence that I first used to “smear” you as a Marxist.
As for abortion, you still have not addressed the author’s point, which is that “pro-choice” is not correct language. In fact, you are getting further and further away from it. But don’t bother to debate this with me, because it is of no interest to me one way or the other. I might stop reading this thread anyway.
The main point of my article is indeed that it is inappropriate to call modern-day, so-called “liberals” liberal, because they do not believe in freedom. I did not offer any substantiating evidence because I didn’t consider it necessary — it is a prima facie case. But proofs do abound, as Rob and others have capably pointed out.
However, even though modern-day conservatives and libertarians are the ones who are truly liberal, I did not and do not advocate reclaiming the term. My point is that we should make a united and determined effort to practice Truth in Labeling by calling the opponents of freedom what they are: statists, leftists, Socialists, and/or Marxists. And often, Stalinists.
Marc Malone, I have never, with the exception of the time my son wrote an article on this site, read the comments on PJM. So there’s no plagiarism going on here, just great minds thinking alike!
In regard to abortion, only two points really apply:
1. Is the fetus human? (If it isn’t human, then what is it?)
2. Is it alive? (If it’s not alive, then how can it be killed?)
If it’s human and alive, then killing it is murder. And committing murder as a solution to a social problem is a very, very slippery slope.
Please excuse the inadvertent misspelling of my name in comment 85. My computer crashed as I was writing the comment.
@80. Marc Malone:
Our Founding Fathers were true radical revolutionaries bent on true freedom, which they achieved.
I hope you don’t actually believe that “true freedom” was achieved by forming a nation that denied rights to slaves and women. The founders started a project that will always be aspiring to greater freedom for all.
Calvin Coolidge put it best when he said that we believe our rights come from God. That is final. Anything else is not progress, but moving backwards. (Not exact quote.)
Who believes that our rights come from God? Certainly not the founders. They understood that these rights are a function of our humanity – not handed down on some divine platter. These are the rights that people claim for themselves as people. Resting this on the foundation of faith in a divine entity is absurd and unnecessary.
Those who would dismantle this limited government in favor of greater government are regressives, not the lying term “Progressives”. During the cold War, any nation with People or Democratic in its name never was for the people nor democratic. [example: DDR (East Germany) Deutches Demokratische Republik = People's Democratic Republic]
Nobody is talking about dismantling the government – just making it better, moving closer to the “true freedom” that is the goal.
When you state that you do not believe there is a role for government to do good, you deny the basic premise of government. If the role of government is not to do good, it has no purpose. Maybe you should review the Declaration of Independence?
@81. Rob:
I’ve noticed for years that when people on the left talk about freedom, they’re almost always talking about sexual freedom–the freedom to have sex with whomever they please and not to suffer any consequences (such as “unwanted” pregnancy).
Let me just say that this is totally absurd. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of conscience – these are the foundation of our freedoms, and are championed by the left.
Look at the left’s signature issues–abortion and “gay marriage”–the filth that constantly pours out of left-dominated Hollywood, and the push within the left-dominated education establishment to teach graphic sex-education courses to young children and distribute condoms in our schools.
I don’t see these as the left’s signature issues. They are in fact the signature issues of the religious right “values” voters that the GOP has been courting for decades. The interest of the left is in preserving freedom and equality – the right is advocating forced birth and unconstitutional discrimination in marriage laws. Preventing this erosion of freedom is a legitimate defense of individual rights. The argument against sex education is based on what? Nothing but religious prejudice, a desire to restrict freedom and prevent education.
Yet every civilized society in history has placed restrictions on sexual freedom, mainly for the protection of women and children. When those restrictions begin to erode, societies gradually become less civilized and eventually die out (cf. ancient Greece, ancient Rome, modern-day California).
There are plenty of restrictions on sexual freedom that protect women and children. Age of consent laws and rape statutes, along with domestic violence legislation, have made women and children safer from sexual violence and exploitation than ever before.
On the other hand, when people on the right talk about freedom or liberty, they generally mean those freedoms specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights–the right to own property, to bear arms, to speak one’s mind on any subject. Those things, not sexual freedom, are what the Founders meant by “liberty”–yet it appears plain to me that the left does not believe in any of them. To wit: Obama’s stated desire to “redistribute wealth”; the left’s long history of attacks on gun ownership; and repressive, leftist-driven campus speech codes.
Along with the right to property comes the responsibility to pay taxes – they have the same origin. The right to bear arms is under no threat – restrictions have been eased since Obama was elected (NP). And the “free speech zones” of the Bush administration are a thing of the past – which is real progress in restoring the freedom to speak one’s mind. The assault on sexual freedom has been unusually strident, so the response has matched – this should not be shocking.
So there are your concrete examples. You might not agree with our premise, but that’s what we’re talking about. What the left calls “freedom” we call license; what we call freedom, the left calls greed, beligerence, and hate speech.
The freedom to speak one’s mind, the freedom to choose one’s partner, and the freedom to control one’s body are not “license” – they are the essence of freedom itself. The right to property is not absolute, nor should it be. The left may call your speech hateful – but will also defend you if you face discrimination based on your expressions. I may despise what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.
@83. myth buster:
If independence is the criterion that the right to life is based in, then logically, one can slaughter any invalid or welfare recipient without penalty.
An invalid is not a dependent entity in the same way that a fetus is – you are making no sense. An invalid can be cared for by anyone, and easily handed off from one to another – so can a welfare recipient. A fetus is dependent in a categorically different way.
Besides the sheer absurdity of that logic, it reduces human beings to the level of property. A fetus is not the property of its mother, cf the 13th Amendment.
If you want to address the 13th amendment, my interpretation is that the mother can’t be made a slave to the state, and forced to bear a child for the government. Nobody is claiming that the fetus is property – just that the woman retains her right to her body. Bearing a child against her will would constitute involuntary servitude.
Also, David, it is you who needs to reread the Declaration of Independence, because apparently you missed the “Endowed by their Creator,” phrase. Since you reject that premise, you also reject the rest of the line.
The “Creator” referred to is the laws of nature. I don’t reject the laws of nature – I reject the misinterpretation of this phrase as a religious endorsement of Christianity.
Lastly, it is no more totalitarian to ban abortion than it is to ban and enforce the ban on any other form of homicide. Prohibiting homicide and punishing it harshly, including executing those who commit premeditated murder or solicit the same, is justice, and it is the primary reason for the government to exist. If the government refuses to punish homicide, it is an unjust government, and ought to be disbanded.
Abortion is not a form of homicide. There is no way to enforce a ban on abortion that does not impermissibly deny the rights of women to control their bodies and seek medical care. Moreover, you cannot claim to be “pro-life” when you advocate the execution of other human beings. As seen recently in Texas, the state makes mistakes, and enacting capital punishment in cases where the defendant is innocent is now a fact in the USA. There is no legal argument that can justify a system that takes irreversible action of this nature. Capital punishment is perhaps the most anti-life policy the state can adopt. Your claim that the execution of murderers is the primary reason for government to exist evinces a complete lack of appreciation for the nature and purposes of government.
@84. Snorri Godhi:
What is Marxist in your thinking is, obviously, expressed in your sentence that I first used to “smear” you as a Marxist.
So my observation that moneyed interests are supported by, and provide support for, the GOP, is simply marxist because you say so. Got it. You don’t know what marxism is, and you are just parroting the term.
As for abortion, you still have not addressed the author’s point, which is that “pro-choice” is not correct language. In fact, you are getting further and further away from it. But don’t bother to debate this with me, because it is of no interest to me one way or the other. I might stop reading this thread anyway.
Being pro-choice is not synonymous with pro-abortion or pro-death. It is in fact the pro-life crowd that seems to be advocating for the death penalty – which puts in stark relief their so-called respect for life. Being pro-choice means respecting the right of others to their own opinion, and not seeking to impose your view on others. It is entirely possible to be pro-choice and also be pro-life – in fact, this is what I would suggest as a better model for the GOP to pursue. If you truly believe in freedom, and not in the power of the state to impose your religion on others, you ought to support the freedom of conscience and action that the pro-choice side advocates.
Peace.
DS
@85. Dave Jenkinsd:
The main point of my article is indeed that it is inappropriate to call modern-day, so-called “liberals” liberal, because they do not believe in freedom. I did not offer any substantiating evidence because I didn’t consider it necessary — it is a prima facie case. But proofs do abound, as Rob and others have capably pointed out.
The case is pretty weak when you consider who is defending the rights of the people. I don’t see free speech being championed by the conservative movement, nor freedom of conscience. The freedom the right is advocating is freedom for property, not for people.
My point is that we should make a united and determined effort to practice Truth in Labeling by calling the opponents of freedom what they are: statists, leftists, Socialists, and/or Marxists. And often, Stalinists.
You can call the left names, but that doesn’t make the case for you. The Democratic party is hardly statist or socialist, and certainly not marxist or stalinist. By claiming such things, you only paint yourself and your fellows as paranoid. Instead of calling people names, why not make the argument on the basis of policy? The only reason to focus on labels is to deflect attention from a lack of substance.
In regard to abortion, only two points really apply:
1. Is the fetus human? (If it isn’t human, then what is it?)
2. Is it alive? (If it’s not alive, then how can it be killed?)
If it’s human and alive, then killing it is murder. And committing murder as a solution to a social problem is a very, very slippery slope.
This simplistic thinking is typical on the right. Of course the fetus is human, and of course it is alive. So is cancer. By your logic, killing a cancer is murder, because it is human and alive. A woman’s right to be inviolate in her body trumps any claims by other beings to her body. You might need her womb to survive, but that does not give you a right to it.
Peace.
DS
#85 DAVID JENKINS,RE:DAVID S(talinist)#88 Liberals are Stalinists;Stalinists have killed more people than cancer,therefore,liberals are worse than cancer.Liberals,like cancer,are alive.Should we consider an en masse retroactive abortion event Davie?BTW,your comments on the first amendment,Cuba,and other issues expose you for what you are a Stalinist!No need to call names,except to confirm what you are and deny you your dishonest cover. DEGUELLO!
So my observation that moneyed interests are supported by, and provide support for, the GOP, is simply marxist because you say so.
Hilarious!
David S: Calling something “absurd” because you happen to disagree with it is not an argument, except in the elementary-school-cafeteria sense.
You state that the left supports freedom of speech, but this time you are the one who fails to provide any supporting evidence. Meanwhile, leftist attacks on free speech are many and frequent. For just two examples, see McCain-Feingold and the recent NFL/Russ Limbaugh debacle, in which the left is attempting to silence dissent by publicly flogging someone who dares to disagree openly and who has a large audience.
It is your logic, not David J.’s, that breaks down when you say that a cancer is both human and alive. Whether it is alive or not, I can’t say, but it is certainly not human.
You say that a woman’s control over her own body trumps every other consideration. I’d like to know: does that apply only to women? Does it apply only to the unborn? If my young children or elderly parents (sorry, Dad) cause me physical inconvenience, discomfort, or psychological pain, do I have the right simply to do away with them because “it’s my body”? If not, by your logic, why not? Does this dictate apply only to those with wombs, and if so is it just to thus discriminate?
David J is right: If a fetus is a living human being, then killing it for any reason other than to save another’s life is, if not murder (one could argue that intent is lacking), at least immoral. I don’t see any getting around that, whatever sophistry the left might bring to bear.
Absolutely I believe in saving the innocent and killing the guilty, and so does the God who created Heaven and Earth, the same Lord Jefferson recognized as Nature’s God. You reject Him, David, and in doing so, you reject sound logic. That is why you can sit here and say a woman has the right to kill her own child because it is an inconvenience, even though the child has committed no crime, even after you confess that the child is human, and thus must have rights per the Laws of Nature you pay lip service to, and then in the same paragraph claim that murderers should not be put to death for their crimes. Bite your body you venomous snake! The only hypocrite here is you, you whitewashed tomb!
WOW!!! I’ve been saying this stuff for years but you blew me away with the written words!!
The “Left” has stolen the OUR understanding of the terminology and re-invented themselves to ‘appear’ non-communist/marxist….lol
PLEASE write more on this subject—-the REAL American Patriots are finally waking up and realizing just what the heck happened and they, myself included, are NOT happy about it one little bit!
Thanks, lisaintx. I’ll be posting more on this subject soon. Part II will focus on the “generous” part of the definition of liberal.