Wow... An Explanation For Liberal Thinking

[FirstMeasure]

Also Erroneous. I'll reserve judgment until I see a source for those pictures. Those people aren't haggard enough to have gone through Holding and Booking. But how about a link to a source, eh?

[Californiaman]

Thanks Dawg,

I think some people are just sheep.

They're willing to follow the leader right over the cliff if need be.

On the other hand, they look like they would definitely support our president no matter what.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet these are the folks that look forward to the redistribution of wealth, usually from the business side of a gun.

[KSG_Standard]

Also Erroneous. I'll reserve judgment until I see a source for those pictures. Those people aren't haggard enough to have gone through Holding and Booking. But how about a link to a source' date=' eh?[/quote']

 

I found this one...

 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1217081mugyear20.html:-"

[FirstMeasure]

 

I found this one...

 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1217081mugyear20.html:-"

Thanks KSG. Just want to keep 'em honest.

 

We all know when a Republican is arrested they're wearing a Polo Shirt with an Alligator on it.

[The Mick]

[callen3615]

^ Half of that is about right....

[dawg086]

Think you KSG I was trying to find a link to it

[FirstMeasure]

I was wrong about the Polo Shirts. Looks like it's suits for all occasions.

 

Thanks again for the link KSG. I couldn't have done it without you.

[KSG_Standard]

Thanks KSG. Just want to keep 'em honest.

 

We all know when a Republican is arrested they're wearing a Polo Shirt with an Alligator on it.

 

Or a suit...

[Hoyt]

Thanks KSG. Just want to keep 'em honest.

 

We all know when a Republican is arrested they're wearing a Polo Shirt with an Alligator on it.

 

 

Or a hood.

[KSG_Standard]

[milod]

Well, Homz....

 

Actually... and I use this when reenacting the CW and Northern Plains Indian Wars era and you could check it if you knew my full name... If certain birth records in Vermont were checked, you would see that I was born July 15, 1842 and enlisted in the Illinois Volunteer Infantry Aug. 28, 1862. You could even read "my" final CW diary on one of the genwebs.

 

<huge grin> Okay, I'm old enough without that.

 

We have two kinds of "liberals" I've worked with as a journalist. This is perhaps on the edge of oversimplification, but I think it works in general terms. (I'd best add this, the same dichotomy is found among "conservatives.")

 

First is the professional liberal who may or may not entirely believe in what he's pushing at a given time or place, but is working the political angles for one reason or another as part of his living or hoped-for societal change. He knows politics is "the art of the possible" and works through a number of systems to get the desired result over varying lengths of time.

 

The other is the "heart" liberal who, for whatever reason, tends to anger those who don't share what he's promoting rather than trying to persuade them he/she is "right." That may or may not be good either for his professional or personal life, but the "heart" is there pounding away. His mind is made up, so don't confuse him with facts. He'll make personal attacks on people when facts or logic doesn't work, which generally is not the way to win friends and influence people outside a circle of like believers.

 

I could tell some personal tales of friendships with "liberal" political figures, some still recognized nationwide, and some who are now forgotten. But these friends were professionals who worked to build support over a broad range of modes and methods to achieve the ends in which they believed.

 

But the "heart" liberals - and I'll state also the "heart" conservatives who ignore the same realities as the "heart" liberals on one issue or another - tend generally to be combative instead of persuasive. They're like gamblers who may win one out of a hundred times - and keep pushing hard for the next one.

 

Oddly the majority of us don't care to fight nastily over "politics."

 

For what it's worth, I haven't met Obama, but he appears to me to be even a better politician than Bill Clinton was at his peak, and I got in trouble both with conservative and liberal friends when I told them early on that Clinton would win first his primary and then the presidency. He's gone downhill, but at the time he was the best pro I'd met.

 

But then, I'm saying that as a "pro" in a field that does some degree of analysis, and in my case, I've met some pretty decent political pros in several countries.

 

Listen to George McGovern, for example. He has little to lose at this point in life, but he's a pretty persuasive man in making his arguments as opposed to a verbal batterer. I haven't talked to him in years, but he's real people to me, not "just" a political target whether I agree with this or that stand or not. Frankly I like the man. He's a pro.

 

My problem with too much modern American politics isn't the "liberal" vs. "conservative" but the fact that seems apparent to me is that a lot of political "leaders" somehow begin to consider that the end justifies the means. They're increasingly skilled and have increasingly skilled machines to create the means to bring their ends and their own personal advancement. I don't think I would have said that 30 years ago.

 

But then, I'm old and perhaps idealistic enough to expect professionalism and integrity from "my" politicians regardless of their political orientation. I find reality tends increasingly to fall far short of my expectations. I shouldn't say this, but unfortunately at this point in time also, it appears the majority of those folks who are more successful at it are on the left.

[milod]

Hi RogerGLewis over in Bristol...

 

Well, some of these arguments may not be "Bristol fashion" to the perspective of a Brit, but...

 

In many ways these little opportunities to vent can reveal some of the cultural splits even among those who have an obvious interest in the arts or they wouldn't be on this list.

 

I've done some work with Brit political figures, too, over the years and, as American politicians, it's not so much politics per se but professionalism or lack thereof that brings out passions.

 

Although... the Commons become far more rowdy in session than either legislative house in the US, as far as I've seen. I do rather like the concept of a shadow cabinet, though.

 

Ah, well. As something of an Anglophile I must admit there remains a bit more personal freedom and significantly more freedom of speech in the US than in the UK. But then, I'll also admit that at my age I no longer can recall all the sovereigns and dates of their reigns from Alfred to Elizabeth II. Sometimes I hate getting old. I don't even read Anglo-Saxon as well as I did 30 years ago. @#$%#@$%$#

[Duende]

Well' date=' Homz....

 

Actually... and I use this when reenacting the CW and Northern Plains Indian Wars era and you could check it if you knew my full name... If certain birth records in Vermont were checked, you would see that I was born July 15, 1842 and enlisted in the Illinois Volunteer Infantry Aug. 28, 1862. You could even read "my" final CW diary on one of the genwebs.

 

<huge grin> Okay, I'm old enough without that.

 

We have two kinds of "liberals" I've worked with as a journalist. This is perhaps on the edge of oversimplification, but I think it works in general terms. (I'd best add this, the same dichotomy is found among "conservatives.")

 

First is the professional liberal who may or may not entirely believe in what he's pushing at a given time or place, but is working the political angles for one reason or another as part of his living or hoped-for societal change. He knows politics is "the art of the possible" and works through a number of systems to get the desired result over varying lengths of time.

 

The other is the "heart" liberal who, for whatever reason, tends to anger those who don't share what he's promoting rather than trying to persuade them he/she is "right." That may or may not be good either for his professional or personal life, but the "heart" is there pounding away. His mind is made up, so don't confuse him with facts. He'll make personal attacks on people when facts or logic doesn't work, which generally is not the way to win friends and influence people outside a circle of like believers.

 

I could tell some personal tales of friendships with "liberal" political figures, some still recognized nationwide, and some who are now forgotten. But these friends were professionals who worked to build support over a broad range of modes and methods to achieve the ends in which they believed.

 

But the "heart" liberals - and I'll state also the "heart" conservatives who ignore the same realities as the "heart" liberals on one issue or another - tend generally to be combative instead of persuasive. They're like gamblers who may win one out of a hundred times - and keep pushing hard for the next one.

 

Oddly the majority of us don't care to fight nastily over "politics."

 

For what it's worth, I haven't met Obama, but he appears to me to be even a better politician than Bill Clinton was at his peak, and I got in trouble both with conservative and liberal friends when I told them early on that Clinton would win first his primary and then the presidency. He's gone downhill, but at the time he was the best pro I'd met.

 

But then, I'm saying that as a "pro" in a field that does some degree of analysis, and in my case, I've met some pretty decent political pros in several countries.

 

Listen to George McGovern, for example. He has little to lose at this point in life, but he's a pretty persuasive man in making his arguments as opposed to a verbal batterer. I haven't talked to him in years, but he's real people to me, not "just" a political target whether I agree with this or that stand or not. Frankly I like the man. He's a pro.

 

My problem with too much modern American politics isn't the "liberal" vs. "conservative" but the fact that seems apparent to me is that a lot of political "leaders" somehow begin to consider that the end justifies the means. They're increasingly skilled and have increasingly skilled machines to create the means to bring their ends and their own personal advancement. I don't think I would have said that 30 years ago.

 

But then, I'm old and perhaps idealistic enough to expect professionalism and integrity from "my" politicians regardless of their political orientation. I find reality tends increasingly to fall far short of my expectations. I shouldn't say this, but unfortunately at this point in time also, it appears the majority of those folks who are more successful at it are on the left.[/quote']

 

That was a great read, thanks.

 

In the UK the type of fighting the parties do seems very different to in the US. Yes things get nasty in debates etc but the fighting seems, please don't misconstrue or take offense, a little less *****ey.

In the tabloids yes there are cartoons of the latest blunder, depending on the papers bias but the arguments in the house of commons is the main battleground and makes very intellectually and also very funny viewing!!

 

I am a Conservative, your equivalent of a Republican but all I see on forums (the other 2 I post on too) is Republicans going on about how Liberals are whiners and moaners etc all the while moaning and whining about it LOL

 

Matt

[milod]

Hi Matt...

 

Thanks for the nice words...

 

Actually one of my political concerns - and believe me, this does have great impact on the arts, and especially "popular" music of many genres - is that we Anglophone followers generally of the concepts of "republican" government in the English tradition are having increasing difficulty with "freedom of speech."

 

Our collective Anglophone literature, in music as well as text, is full of "protest songs" and direct or indirect "advocacy" songs. And yet we're finding increasingly that such music is being censored.

 

I'm not talking about "dirty words" since, let's face it, "Greensleeves" in its first documented mention was as a "dirty ditty." Some of the old broadsides such as "Sam'l Hall" were horridly crude.

 

I'm talking instead of more overtly political or cultural commentary in music. One recent American example was the Hank Willliams Jr. piece, "A country boy can survive."

 

Much as I care little for Rap, were it sans the crudity I think it often expresses some interesting cultural insights into what's up for criticism in terms of politics and "the system."

 

Leadbelly once wrote a song about Washington, D.C. being a "bourgeois town." Blues singers sang of "if you're white, you're all right; if you're brown, stick around; if you're black, get back." Hey, that's not bad to consider regardless of one's personal politics.

 

But then, how about studying history and political propaganda by watching "Triumph of the Will" from Hitler's Germany? It once was rather easy to purchase in the US, not in many places in Europe as I understand it.

 

Try to find some of the anti-German songs from WWI and WWII in either of our countries. Especially in the US there were really nasty pieces done referencing Japanese people. Try to find musical copies of any of those. We lose our history when we lose those things - and they're lost because of "political correctness." Nowadays in the UK or Europe see what happens to folks to say bad things about what they see as a Muslim incursion on their own culture. They may or may not be right, but should they not have the right to speak such things?

 

Ah, well... Here's the old man on his figurative old-style Hyde Park soapbox. <grin>

[albertjohn]

Ah' date=' well. As something of an Anglophile I must admit there remains a bit more personal freedom and significantly more freedom of speech in the US than in the UK.

[/quote']

 

Not to be confused with the appetite and ability to preach of course! :-

[pippy]

Thanks for your contributions, milod. As always you make a number of very accurate observations.

 

Nowadays in the UK or Europe see what happens to folks to say bad things about what they see as a Muslim incursion on their own culture. They may or may not be right' date=' but should they not have the right to speak such things?[/quote']

 

I would, however, have added a rider at the end of the above quote to whit the 'freedom of speech' is not used invidiously and with the sole intention of stirring up mass feelings of racism, xenophobia, homophobia etc...etc...and I'm sure you feel the same way.

 

In the UK most national newspapers are capable of a deftness and slight-of-hand approach to journalism skillful to behold when dealing with certain issues in order to persuade their readers how certain sensitive subjects should be interpreted.

 

Ah' date=' well... Here's the old man on his figurative old-style Hyde Park soapbox. <grin>[/quote']

 

And what a wonderful institution it is.

[milod]

Hi Pippy...

 

Actually your caveats are where the devil is in the details.

 

You wrote, "I would, however, have added a rider at the end of the above quote to whit the 'freedom of speech' is not used invidiously and with the sole intention of stirring up mass feelings of racism, xenophobia, homophobia etc...etc...and I'm sure you feel the same way."

 

Actually, I don't feel the same way.

 

Courts in the UK, for example, have been used to file lawsuits won under law in that nation against American authors living in the U.S. and publishing in the US. Why? Because they were critical of Sharia law and concerns that it doesn't make a cultural "fit" with the legal and governmental traditions of most Anglophone nations.

 

The problem we always will have is interpretation of what is "racism?" What especially is "xenophobia?" Were, for example, the Scots xenophobic about the English or vice versa prior to the Skye Boat Song? <grin>

 

Is it xenophobia if the French insist on the French language being the only official language in their nation, or English in England? Are the Irish xenophobic about the English? Or vice versa?

 

Worse, who determines what's "racist?" Who determines what's "homophobic?"

 

Granted, we have seen over the centuries a split in our two nations' concepts of libel in the particulars of case law; yet in both nations it's illegal to holler out "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

 

Where is the line drawn in terms of freedom of speech and maintenance of our history?

 

We've already virtually lost some of our musical history thanks to behind-the-scenes political correctness. Try finding a copy, as I've noted before, of "We're going to have to slap that dirty little Jap" that was quite popular in the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. Is that xenophobic or of historical interest to musicologists and music historians and sociologists and historians in general.

 

What indeed of "art" that places a crucifix upside down in a jar of urine? Or diatribes against Roman Catholicism? Would you add heresy to your list of "we can't allow" music or literature? Some nations have. Functionally I think at least one English sovereign did some similar stuff. In the U.S. we had the "sedition act" that could put one in jail for publishing criticism of the president and other officials.

 

Do we really want to steal our own history, burn our own books and smash CDs because somebody has determined they're somehow racist, xenophobic or homophobic? Or religiously heretical and therefore inflaming passions for or against a specific religion? Should Rushdie have been slain or jailed for his writings? Should his writings have been forbidden publication?

 

Who will determine what is objectionable on all those grounds and what is acceptable? You? Me? Will we always agree on what is or isn't xenophobia or racism or religious intolerance or homophobia? I doubt it. So if I disagree with you on xenophobia, are one or the other of us guilty of it ipse facto?

 

I very seriously consider this "freedom of speech" issue one of great importance to all of us, especially those of us with political/social commentary in our musical lyrics.

 

What think you of the Rap lines that proclaim one should slap the "hoes" if they mouth off? Or "off the pigs?" I find both terribly objectionable and yet I find more objectionable the censor who would make them illegal.

 

Whatever...

[heymisterk]

 

Good try!:-

 

But the drawing had been around for YEARS...

 

Yes, just like most so-called conservative Republicans. And just like that group, it is dated, out of touch, and shows a remarkable lack of imagination.

You poor rich conservatives...I'd get all that money out of my offshore accounts while I can...

[FennRx]

you mean put money in off shores accounts....

[Mr. Robot]

This would have to be the most civilised and mature political thread I have read for months, thanks to Milod. I feel I can read it without being highly offended or insulted, even if I disagree with it.

[milod]

Thanks Mr. Robot...

 

BTW <chortle> is an Aussie xenophobic if he refers to someone from England as a "Pom?"

 

(I've a good friend in Brisbane who's almost as politically incorrect as I am sometimes.)

[Mr. Robot]

Thanks Mr. Robot...

 

BTW <chortle> is an Aussie xenophobic if he refers to someone from England as a "Pom?"

 

(I've a good friend in Brisbane who's almost as politically incorrect as I am sometimes.)

 

 

Nice to hear from you Milod.

 

Its funny. "Pom" has survived the age of political correctness - it is almost a term of endearment towards the English now, so you dont get sued for using it.

 

Even more bizarrely, the derogatory term 'wog' which was used in the 60's towards Italian migrants is now proudly proclaimed as an anthem by the Italian community in Melbourne. There is even a stage play called "Wogs Out of Work" and the cast are Italian. Wonderful Aussie humour.

[bluzhammer]

 

 

 

In my experience' date=' there are a lot of people who were somewhat "conservative" in their youth who have grown to appreciate more liberal ideas.

 

Where I grew up in the red, slave state of Georgia, there is nothing worse than some fool who still clings to the conservative ideals from the 50s or early 60s.

 

BTW -- There is considerable doubt that Churchill made the overused quote you posted earlier. You might want to look it up. In any event, "conservatism" in the fiscal sense is one thing. The kind of "conservatism" common in this country (and on this board) is something else. [/quote'] Some folks never give up beating that old dead slavery horse. Is this Al Sharpton on line? Being Georgia born and bred, I don't sit around and cry about the war of Northern Aggression, it's the past. What I am concerned about is the future of my nation as a whole.

[The Holy Hand Grenade]

I always thought the only thing that went through an American Conservatives mind was "God did it" and "They took our Gurns!!!".