Sure, but why it should it be their choice to waste money that comes from all of us? Why give them that choice?

I don't quite get the "elitist" charecterization. Aren't these the people who want socialism and everyone in every profession to be treated as equals? The group that wants everyone to have the same access to health care? That doesn't sound elitist in any sense of the word.

When I think of elitist, I think of someone who acts as if they are better than someone. I'd probably give that to someone who believes everyone on welfare is lazy and that people don't have health insurance because they aren't sophisticated enough to figure out a way to purchase it.

So the guy who throws some change in the homeless guys hat is the elitist and the one who tells him to get a fucking job is the one who's not? I'm not saying either point of view is right or wrong as I'm actually someone who opposes a lot of how we handle welfare type stuff. But it just seems odd to me to be calling those people elitist.

Actually, foreign aid is really low. It's under 1% of our total budget. Also, a lot of aid actually works in our favor. For instance we help a country and in return they buy some planes or products from American companies. Or when it allows us to get things done in another part of the world that is much cheaper than doing it ourselves (aid in return for cheap oil, etc).

I think the "liberal political elitist" is someone that thinks because they have a college degree, they know best how everything should work, and anyone who disagrees is a moron, and immoral. They're SO sure they're right that they mock other people for living the way they want, and running their state and local governments the way they want.

Obviously, plenty of conservatives do this to, but there's generally much less intellectual snobbery. It's party a urban v. rural, north v. south cultural thing. "We know what's good for you so shut up with your opinions, redneck."

And I know I beat this horse into the ground, but this is the political thread - people who favor socialism are not, based on that belief alone, more moral or compassionate than someone who hates socialism. These are political and economic discussions, not morality discussions. We're all on the same page. Nobody wants human suffering. There's just different ideas about how to get where we want to be. I think there'd be a lot more creative ideas, progress, and a better world if we see these things as good v. evil, I'm compassionate and you hate poor children, etc.

Maybe we should create a new form of Congress-critter then. Given the mass corruption I'm seeing out of the Dems/Reps, I'm pretty much voting third party from now on (except for particular individuals who might standout from their parties). With all the power of the internet you would think someone would start a populist machine by now, the problem is none of them want to actually think about simple platforms that can grab a huge crowd. They drag into 'remaking the world' style platforms that are pie in the sky, allow themselves to be dragged into the supposed two-party style debate of non-issues, and then fall apart.

A little social networking and engineering, I'm sure a motivated group could take over a small state if it focused to particular theme and maintained all the status quo on unrelated issues (to avoid fragmentation over silly stuff that won't be changed anytime soon anyway, the supposed social issues). Would you vote for your old useless incumbent republicrat again who you know will do jack shit even if elected, or would you vote for the narrow-minded platform that actually changed something you agree with?

Hell, we are in the era of people longing for government paralysis because it is that ineffective. What better time to shake it up?

Military welfare specifically.

I can go with that. There is more intellectual snobbery on the left although I'd say there is more moral snobbery on the right.

I agree in some cases but I still think there is an element of both sides condoning human suffering and making excuses for it.

The right has tried to turn those who collect welfare into losers who are riding the system. Reagan did make famous the "welfare queens" from Chicago. Even the story about the Lt Governor from South Carolina reaks of that attitude that these people are lesser human beings and don't deserve anything from us. During the health care debate we had a lot on the right in this thread alone come in talking about how these people could afford insurance if they weren't all driving expensive cars and buying plasma TVs. There is an element of "these people deserve it" that goes into that rhetoric.

And the left does the same thing with anyone who has been succesful. They treat those who went to school, worked hard, and made their mark as people robbing the poor and screwing over society. They treat the rich as people who "got lucky" instead of people who just worked really hard in their life. That these people "owe society" something.

It's a form of class warfare that has always been around in this country and played out through our politicians. Sides need common enemies. It's easy to justify not paying welfare if the person getting it is just some loser who is lazy. Just as it's easy to justify taxing someone more if we portray them as some cold-hearted asshole who got lucky.

Very good post.

The only thing I'd add is that any argument against taxes, or more government programs, tends to be opposed on moral grounds, that the only conceivable reason someone might be for a more fiscally responsible government is that taxing the rich is "unfair", or something. That one really bugs me. (Most) people who want smaller, more responsible government aren't motivated by the hardships of taxation on the rich.

Not to get all intellectual and snobbish, but this reminded me of a passage I just read in "Throes of Democracy" by Walter McDougall.


I read this the same day DT expressed his desire to kick states out of the union if they didn't support civil unions, btw. :)

But you repeatedly have accused people on this board of hating the rich for any suggestion that a progressive tax structure akin to the Clinton levels would be viable.

Nah, I just think that moral superiority is what motivated some of those opinions from particular posters. Same thing I'm saying here.

And I remember a rhetoric that demanded "results" way, way, way beyond the Clinton levels of taxation. As in, what was wrong and evil with the U.S. was wealth disparity, and that we had too many billionaires. Which I don't think was going to be changed with Clinton level tax cuts (the implication I guess was that Bush created wealth disparity with those tax cuts). Something else was really being proposed, just nobody had the balls to suggest it.

The real motivation for those opinions is pretty obvious when its there (which is pretty rarely)- just like it was with that Lt. Governor from South Carolina.

With all due respect, the South's moral compass is not exactly overwhelming; they've been wrong on every major civil rights issue in the last 200 years (Church v. State, Slavery, civil rights, poll taxes, Science v Religion,) - but by all means, defend them.

If that Research 2000 poll is accurate (and Bruce Bartlett is hardly a hack) and 73% of Republicans believe that gay people are too goddamn icky to be allowed to teach in schools, we have a problem. This bullshit moral relativism about "differences in opinions" doesn't allow outright discrimination, and is somewhat ridiculous when the same parties (legitimately, in my opinion) complain of the whitewashing of Islamic barbarism in the name of relativity.

OT, but McDougall is great. Out of the stuff I've read on the Civil War, this was one offered some of the more unique and less talked about perspectives. Really thought provoking although took me forever to finish based on its sheer size. Not sure if you've read Freedom Just Around the Corner, but I thought it was even better and one of the best early American history books I've ever read.

I put McDougall right there alongside McCullogh as one of my favorite historic writers.

Can you show me who said we have too many billionaires, because I don't recall that comment.

You consistently argue that liberals or Democrats believe this or that often without being able to cite someone saying it. Whether or not you have proof, though, doesn't matter because you know what's being proposed. If you want to get past arguing in good vs. evil terms it would be beneficial to stay away from gross generalizations based not on what you can prove, but what you "know".

With all due respect, where did I defend the South?

I haven't read Freedom Just Around the Corner... very tempted to, but since I just finished Throes of Democracy and I've done quite a bit of early American history lately, I picked up Menard's The Metaphysical Club. It's actually working well as a followup to Throes of Democracy.

The only thing that got me on this again was SteveBollea criticizing Colorado Springs for budget cuts, and then DT's moral superiority proclamation (how his opinions are the "compassionate" ones). I'll go away again. This thread is a lot smoother when MBBF is the only one with a dissenting opinion on anything. I kind of wish he would go away, just out of curiosity about you guys would talk about. I guess it would be like one of those threads where someone's relative dies and everyone wishes them well.

Pointing out those specific posts is fine whether or not I agree. The problem comes when you criticize generalizations by making generalizations.

btw- I don't really care what the voters in Colorado Springs decide to fund. I wouldn't want to live with that level of services, but if others do so be it.

I seem to remember someone posting a link to wikipedia that showed the list of the world's billionaires (or the Top 100 or something like that), and some people reacting negatively that Americans made the majority of the list.

EDIT: Nevermind. Found the thread and no one reacted badly to the number of billionaires, just the disparity of wealth from a different graph.

Why not just word it a different way: based on the responses, it seems most in this thread have little issue with how wealth is distributed in the US. Is this correct?

For me, I have no problem with it.

Actually this is where the debate was centered. The problem, though, is the assumption that income disparity can't be lessened without reducing the number of billionaires. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't care about the raw number of billionaires. I do think too many government policies are weighted towards the top one or two percent of earners.

I also believe that a more balanced distribution of income will lead to greater overall growth for the economy. You can disagree, and that's a valid debate, but it has nothing to do with trying to make sure there are less billionaires or hating rich people.

So unless we agree with you we're somehow being unfair? You're not the only person with a dissenting opinion. In fact at times the dissenting opinion is the majority opinion. Just over the last few pages there have been a number of different posters with differing viewpoints.

i remember when dissent was deemed unpatriotic as opposed to Obama's intro at the GOP meeting. He's such a socialist!

The dissenting opinion is the majority opinion? I'll never understand you relativists.

Oh please get over yourself. This has got to be one of the lamest posts you've made. You made generalizations, you got called on it and your response amounts to the equivalent of a Kindergartner threatening to take his ball and go home. Either defend your position or don't, but spare us this passive aggressive bullshit about how you're trying to even the debate playing field. Maybe one day you'll realize you're just as partisan as anyone else here.

Someone did, it's called "The Democratic Party".

i stand by that desire by the way - as stated earlier (maybe not in the initial post, but certainly as it was fleshed out in the discussion that followed).

if you're talking about the post i think you're talking about i wasn't talking about moral superiority, i was talking Arles' definition of "elitist" being somewhat "off"

Oh I know you do, that's why I found the quote so fitting. Your stance reminds me in some ways of the stance taken by the hardcore abolitionists in Boston before the Civil War. I think it's Chief Rum who quotes William Lloyd Garrison in his signature. Garrison also said, "The compact which exists between the North and the South is a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell." That sounds like something you'd give a "+1" if you saw someone post it here.

Can't say I could think of better company that WLG and the abolitionists of Boston to be put with IMHO.

So thanks.

I'll +1 that right back.

Then again, I think (and I think you'd agree) that the good that we did by removing the institution of slavery was worth it.

Umm ... huh?

minority <> dissenting

Don't know that I recall hearing that quote before but I'd go +1 on it.

I can only figure you mean "dissenting from the original proposition".

(That's the only thing I could come up with on JPhillips might have meant that made any sort of sense)

Well I interpreted it to mean that you could have a majority of people dissent from the 'administration' and yet still have the administration continue on their way....much like the Townhalls decried against the UHC. right? I could be wrong but that's where my brain was on it.

Just a poorly worded way to point out to molson that there's a pretty broad range of opinion and he's not always isolated in a bunker fighting off hoards of liberals all by his lonesome.

:lol:

i don't think i need to point out the obvious necessarily...the "death" and "hell" in that quote are not something that can be flipped around and have the quote retain the same meaning that its speaker intended.

but that's cute Jon.

You're welcome. But here's the thing: Garrison and the abolitionists didn't convince anyone. Black codes became more restrictive in the North in the 1840's and 50's. After the war, many of them were used as the basis for the Jim Crow laws in the South. When Garrison made his comments about the Constitution being a pro-slavery document, it pissed off a lot of people. Garrison split with Frederick Douglass shortly after making those comments, because Douglass believed that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document, while Garrison set the Constitution on fire, literally, in an act of defiance against the government. He managed to marginalize himself and his position in the eyes of the public. In fact, it was Garrison and the abolitionists that had to adjust their views to fit conventional wisdom once war began. Garrison wasn't a Unionist, he was a secessionist who believed that secession needed to come from the North. Once the war began, Garrison realized that to maintain any credibility in the North he would have to adapt his views to better fit that of popular culture, while also trying to inculcate his views of the war being a religious crusade against slavery among the People at large. Only by selling out his belief in non-violence did Garrison find any credence for his views among the American people.

And just so I understand this... you don't have a problem with Garrison making these arguments in religious terms? Because WLG was a true fundamentalist in his religious beliefs. He ultimately believed "love me like a brother, or I shall slit your throat... or at least encourage other mothers and fathers to send their own sons to slit your throat".


Further, you don't have a problem with WLG burning a copy of the Constitution, or his position that the Constitution was an inherently pro-slavery document? You don't have a problem with WLG's belief that citizenship itself is a form of participation and violence and oppression against slaves (in the case of gay marriage/civil unions I guess the parallel would be that your citizenship only validates the discriminatory federal and state laws currently in place)?

You may admire Garrison's ends, but if you're honest you'd have to vehemently object to his means. After all, he spent most of his life in pursuit of making others live under his fundamentalist religious views.

Was it Garrison that turned his back on Frederick Douglas after Douglas married a white woman saying that Douglas had gone too far?

*needs to look that up* EDIT: Bah, can't find it, but doesn't look like it was.

Oh boy. A CamEdwards-style history lesson on WLG. Fun fun. That's alright, I know you wanted it to be some insult and weren't expecting the embrace of it by myself and a couple others, so I can understand your follow-up.

I think what you discount though is that by saying "there's no better company i can think of to be lumped into," that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with all of the motives & methods used 100% of the time. Attempts to paint someone with a brush like that are really just intellectually lazy - clearly one can have differences of opinion or find certain parts of someone or their movement less attractive than others.

I should probably do some work today, but let me go through and address a few points in your post.


Wasn't a matter of convincing. In that regard I'm like Jon - it's about intolerance of an utterly reprehensible institution being the morally correct stance.



The truth hurts.


I greatly admire Frederick Douglass, and honestly would have been equally as happy to be lumped-in with him. The split between the two was unfortunate in that regard.

It's not about whether his veiw was the prevailing view or not, it's that his view was what it was.


I know you've been following along in this thread - I know you're aware of the fact that Jon and I (and others - SteveBollea?) agree that permanant secession would have been a vastly superior outcome to what we have today. I however, am greatful that the North did take it upon itself to remove the institution of slavery from North America. Whether that secession came from the North or South doesn't matter to me. I don't fall under the "secession is not allowed" reading of the Constitution. As a matter of fact, my father's side (where he has understandably done the vast amount of genealogical research) dates back a Thomas Harris, born in Kent UK in 1586 who died in Henrico VA in 1682. His son, Robert Harris was born in what is now York County, VA in 1630. The family migrated over the years from VA to NC to SC to AL. Members of that branch of the family fought in the war for AL brigades. I've got no issues with secession.


That's fine. If I had been alive during those times, I would have been a violent abolitionist. Although clearly the raid on the Federal Armory wasn't the greatest idea (tongue in cheek under-exxageration there), I gotta say that (again) although there are aspects of him that I find less appealing, John Brown was a great man - a hero, who (in the words of biographer Richard Owen Boyer) "gave his life that millions of others might be free." As Louis Rachmunes says "Brown's action was one of great idealism and placed him in the company of the great liberators of mankind."

Although I generally am non-violent, there are times (such as when the lives of millions are at stake) that violence as a means to an end is justified. "Just war" theory and all that.



I wouldn't say I don't have a problem with it, but it's something that although I might have couched it in other ways, I can still agree with his ultimate goal.


With regard to that particular evil that he was engaged in struggle against, I have zero problem with that.



Nope. None. Freedom of speech. If anything I think that should have aroused much greater shock then than you're trying to make it have now - it was much more "recent history" then.


Nope. I think it pretty clearly was - the 3/5 compromise is a pretty clear indication of that.


On an intellectual level I think it's a fascinating position. Does that mean I'd be willing to make the sacrifice of renouncing my citizenship tomorrow? That's unlikely - unless I could get citizenship somewhere else in return, somewhere where I could continue my business, etc. But purely on a political philosophy level, no problem with it.


Already covered above. Certainly I think there were other ways to go about it, but as far as galvanizing a movement, at that time, that was certainly the most effective way.

As Garrison himself said - "I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; – but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest – I will not equivocate – I will not excuse – I will not retreat a single inch – AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead."

That's the way I took it. Here's how it works:

1. Poster A states an opinion.

2. Forty-three people reply in dissent to that opinion.

In fact, that's probably how most conversations work around here. :D

Here's the thread where we debated whether or not the Left hates the rich: Question for people that hate the excessively rich... - Front Office Football Central

The fun starts with post 35.

Nice going, Flere: you just broke our "most consecutive posts mentioning William Lloyd Garrison" streak :)

:(

On the other hand, I was the person who kept a discussion of sodomy running for three pages in this thread. Doesn't that count for something?

quick! edit!!

Since I'm being a killjoy anyway, I'll link to today's NYT editorial which talks about the defense portion of the budget: Editorial - The Defense Budget - NYTimes.com

I didn't mean it as an insult. I was hoping you'd actually write more than a sentence or two, so I could try to get a better read on where you're coming from.


So you're willing to sacrifice for your beliefs, as long as your sacrifice doesn't actually entail a sacrifice. Gotcha.


But as we've already determined, it wasn't particularly effective until the public was willing to buy war as a moral and religious crusade. By saying that, you're reducing a man's faith to a cynical public relations ploy. His faith wasn't just the "most effective way" of making his argument, it was WHY he was compelled to make the argument and what sustained him during his times of personal sacrifice and physical threats.

But more importantly, your answer tells me that you'll make excuses for any behavior, even behavior that you find abhorrent. This was your original statement back on page 164.



But you'll condone it, as long as that behavior is coming from "your side". Not a shocking revelation for anyone, but since you're one of the High Princes of Sanctimony in this thread, it is nice to see it so blatantly revealed.

Is there anything you truly believe in, DT, other than the absolute correctness of whatever position you happen to hold at the time?