Do liberals seem elitist to you?

Post Reply New Topic

The reason liberals are regarded as elitist is because they are loosing politically. Liberal activists could say the most repulsive things about a majority of the population and still be regarded as "populist" if they were winning, politically (Stephen Moore is no friend of the masses & con artist politicans have whinned about "people who can barely speak English" electing Obama. This is elitism but it doesn't go noticed because the conservatives are winning.).

I can come up with quite a few instances of conservatives being mean to be (one saying that Asperger's was an "inherent problem with the brain" responsible for my "coldness" in addition to be raised by a non-traditional family - a single-father - and another calling me a f***t with no evidence whatsoever). Most people would probably just dismiss that as a "few bad apples" that arises naturally due to the way annoymous internet forums are structured. Yet many would view the spitefulness of some left-liberals to Inuvasyha as a broader problem with the culture of left-liberalism only because there's already a media narrative about liberal arrogance and this is because liberals are loosing. In countries where reform-liberals or even social democrats win, the narrative is about the arrogance of the socially Darwinistic conservatives.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 29 Nov 2010, 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

That isn't entirely true marshall. Conservatives have no problem with giving to charity, fact is they prefer to donate to help others through charity because they don't trust the government to do it due to incompetitence on the part of Government. Conservatives would also have no problem with welfare if the individual was getting training to find work in another field.

Fact is Conservatives do have sympathy for others, however they don't believe it is a good idea to spend yourself to death which ends up helping no one long term.

The cold hard truth is that charities could not deal with the humanitarian crisis created by massive unemployment during the early years of the Great Depression. Conservatives and Big Business railed against FDR and wanted him impeached. Almost all his actions were charged as being criminal and unconstitutional by wealthy interests. Yet the people didn't care and re-elected him anyways because so many were suffering and really didn't give one f*ck about Big Business or legal hair-splitting.

I think that's the problem these days. The unemployed aren't genuinely suffering like they were in the past so they can be free to blast the government on everything while they are still collecting benefits from government programs. If you go by more old-fashioned measures of unemployment, comparable to those used in the 1920s and 1930s, we are currently at 15% or more. If those 15% were out on the streets today we would have a humanitarian crises on a scale similar to the early 1930s.

People behave differently if they believe they are getting a Free Lunch.

ruveyn

Orwell - appreciated. That helps.

I hate to resurrect a thread, but it seems Liberals just don't get it.

They aren't as smart as they think they are and sure as hell are not morally or intellectually superior. They are not as tolerant of others as they claim, see Juan Williams. Heck liberal Democrats don't even understand why they lost. They think that the masses are stupid and it was a communication problem. Reality is that the people understood what they were saying and thought the Democrat ideas were crud. The Reality is the Democrats royally pissed the American people off by not listening to the public saying that they didn't agree with them. At least Republicans for the most part know how to listen to their employers and get it. Liberals it seems just can't understand that Congress and the White House are supposed to be working for us, we are their employer, not the other way around.

Hmmm, I wonder what you would have to say if a liberal went on a pointless rant about conservatives in a similar fashion. Do you see the irony in your statement?

Wouldn't be any different from what already goes on here now, only difference is a Conservative is dishing it out right back at the Liberals.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/06/f ... -internet/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motl ... -who-are-c

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in ... nder=print


The goal of these types of people, and the cowardly lackeys who cave into their demands, is to de-legitimize any criticism of the current administration by calling it racism or claiming that the critics are themselves racist.
http://bluftooni.blogspot.com/2009/06/h ... inion.html

Then we have the rants by a certain poster whom shall remain nameless about trying businessmen for treason and advocating censorship...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzrxy9A7Ja4[/youtube]

Jesus disagrees with you. Luke 21—there is no virtue in giving token charity and cutting it off whenever it gets to be inconvenient.


The polling disagrees with you. Congressional Republicans have a lower approval rating than Congressional Democrats.

Okay, that line would work if we didn't have people whom make less money giving more to charity than the people whom make more money. Only it was the Conservative making less money and the Liberal making more money.



Which poll are you referring to, where was it conducted, etc.? You have to look at those indicators, cause if a poll is conducted in Nancy Pelosi's district you would get that kind of data. I'm looking at the fact that the Democrats lost so many seats in congress that it made 1994 look like a good year for Democrats.

The real problem was the lack of results, not stupid ideology. They also failed to manage expectations. If I had been Obama, somehow forced into an inadequate stimulus, I would have, after doing all possible including threatening to close military bases on the territories of recalcitrant congresspeople, told the people that this measure would stop the bleeding and stop the bleeding only and that this would not reverse the damage. Had he done this no one could have said, "Obama said unemployment would not pass 8% and would hit 10% without the stimulus and we have 10% unemployment therefore the stimulus is a failure". Obama also totally underestimated the severity of the problem when he spoke and refused to blame neoliberal ideology... it's as if he was fitted with a straitjacket before entering office by his plutocratic "investors" in his presidency.

Someone made a great point about the huge error in appointing Larry Summers and company to run the economy, and that is Summers had a personal stake not in the success of Obama or the economy, but in vindicating himself and his past actions, and if he failed this, at the very least in enriching himself and his cronies. He had no stake in fixing the economy, really.

@ xenon13

Oh you mean the political tactics of doing your best to ruin everyone that doesn't agree with you. Such as the fact many of the car dealerships that were shut down almost entirely for political reasons not economic ones.

All you do is blame Bush, when it is the Left's own policies that were the cause of the mess.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZWRyMCxRs8&feature=fvw[/youtube]

The emergency totally justified the use of every arrow in the executive branch's quiver to have the appropriate measures passed. That he did not do so is gross negligence. He should have made it clear that contracts would be cancelled, that bases would be closed, that offices would be moved, that campaign financing from the party would dry up, if they refused to play ball. Instead he essentially let the Blue Dogs run the show.

The way the right speaks of Obama as a Chicago Thug is highly amusing in that if he was such a politician he'd achieve something more substantial. He is being attacked for being this Chicago Thug but is not benefiting at all from it. It's sort of like what happened to Milosevic. He was cast as Hitler 2 but had he really been Hitler 2 and crushed Croatia and Bosnia, he would have won the war. Instead, he got the worst of both worlds.