How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief...

[Hang on Sloopy]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

McCarthy was wise and smart enough to see what 2021 would like. Executing Hollywood commies should have been a priority

Hollywood is the last place on earth you will find communism. The town is a tribute to capitalism and is one of the most conservative things in modern life. You are confusing communism with a few artistic people showing concern for the plight of the planet and its citizens.

Because you are damaged goods you just label it "communism" when in fact it is just normal behaviour. Its another sign that the world has moved on and left you and your arse scratching mates behind in the C20th. Get some help.

Wow you are the exact opposite of reality in anything you say...do you walk and drive backwards?

Go back to scratching your fat arse. Another right wing clown who hurls insults when he cant prove his point. Pathetic.

That was hurling an insult?????.Lol......................Would you like to see a real one?

Why dont you try responding in an adult fashion. We can take it from there.

The person you asked to try to respond in an adult fashion believes that Barak Obama is a muslim from Kenya and Michelle is a man.

Seriously, do you actually believe that poster is capable of anything close to anything in an adult fashion?

If so.

Good luck with that.

Take your meds wench. If you don't like what I say, then shut your mouth and mean it. Nasty libturd broads here.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

McCarthy was wise and smart enough to see what 2021 would like. Executing Hollywood commies should have been a priority

Hollywood is the last place on earth you will find communism. The town is a tribute to capitalism and is one of the most conservative things in modern life. You are confusing communism with a few artistic people showing concern for the plight of the planet and its citizens.

Because you are damaged goods you just label it "communism" when in fact it is just normal behaviour. Its another sign that the world has moved on and left you and your arse scratching mates behind in the C20th. Get some help.

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of Hollywood. A place where nearly everyone espouses anti capitalistic and liberal views, yet all of them became rich off of a capitalistic system, and made their money portraying things they hate, and will tell you are wrong.

There you go again. Liberal views are just common decency. Held by most people across the world who dont live in your narrow partisan hate bubble.

Give me an example of these liberal views in relation to Hollywood.

No hate bubble. You want an example of what specifically? Most Hollywood types are liberal, they believe in and practice liberal policy. What examples are you looking for.

For the record, Republicans have common decency as well, the difference is how they believe society should be.

For example, liberals believe that if you have money, they should be able to take it from you, and give it to someone else. How is that "decent"? Sure, for the person receiving that money, its great, for the person who had to earn that money, or make sacrifices and take risks to make that money, not so great.

Its noble that you on the left want to help the poor, I think we should all do that, but nobody should be forced into helping the poor. Oddly, all those liberals who talk about how we need to help the poor...you don't see them reaching into their own pockets, you see them trying to make government take it from someone else.

Honestly, there is no difference between the left and the right, other than the path to solving issues. Left wing media will make you believe that all right wingers are thes monstrous hate filled, evil people who want to do harm to everyone else. Nothing could be further from the truth. Its just spin and lies from those left wing talking heads. Both sides have compassion, both sides have common decency.

The right says "just leave us alone and do what the constitution says", the left says "do what we want or were going to punish you with our cancel culture, or our labels that we will put on you to make you look bad and try to silence you."

The left is capable of, and frequently does display and enact as much or more hate than the right. For a group that claims to be about diversity, inclusion, tolerance, you only desire those things if it fits in your bubble, anyone else needs to be ostracized from society and shut out.

Your desire to force others to your way of thinking is, probably, the ultimate show of hate.

A list of films that illustrate this would help. I think yo will struggle. I cant think of a single movie that supports abortion, or gun control or any that promote an anti american view of the world..
I thnk that this demon is in your head.

I wasn't talking about movies that support gun control, or abortions, etc. I was talking about actors who support liberal policies, such as gun control, but then star in movies where violence, and gun play are glorified. If these actors really want to tell us that these things are wrong, then they need to refuse to use those items in their movies.

I am not sure where you are going with this. Acting is a job and actors play parts and not themselves. By definition every word they utter is a lie. And written for them. Your Commiewood thesis is looking short on proof at the moment.

So, you are saying you don't see the conflict of supporting liberal anti gun and anti violence policies, but then make money off of movies that depict those things? What kind of message is that saying to the rest if us.

Live by example is what I'm talking about here. When you glorify something that you advocate against, it becomes a conflict. You want to ban guns, but then Hollywood makes guns look cool, so now everyone thinks, hey, guns are cool, but then liberals say guns are bad. Liberals tell you we need to ban guns, but Hollywood says its OK to use guns to make money. Again, a conflict.

What about my post on grammys and the Oscar's? There another example for you.

I havent read that one. You now seem to be arguing that Hollywood is pro gun. That doesnt sound like a liberal stance.

No, I'm arguing that most of your actors are liberal, and as such, they support liberal policies, one if which is strict gun control, and including banning certain guns, yet, those same actors will use those same guns in movies that glorify guns and depict violence, often, brutal violence.

My point on this is, how can you be against something, but then use that very thing to make money? Yes, I understand they are just acting, but, they are using the very thing the left hates, as a prop to make money.

My point on the grammys and Oscar's is, in a liberal dominated entertainment industry, where they all preach equality, yet every year they hold awards ceremonies to recognize people who did better than others.

You have a very individual take on equality. Awards ceremonies are just marketing tools that everyone in the industry gets a benefit from. They do not indicate that one artist is better than another.
The more saleable artists get paid more, generally because they will sell more tickets than less popular artists. Tats just the way it is in art,in business and in life.

Equality is about opportunity not reward and I do not see that as partisan.

Well, they have categories like best artist, song of the year, album of the year..or, for academy awards,, best actor, best supporting actor, best picture etc.. Basically, the whole thing is to recognize singers and actors who made the best movies, and it does give them benefits. An academy award winning actor will be offered better roles, and can demand more money for their work. Grammy award winning singers will get asked to do things like movie music, sing at sporting events etc..

So, yes, they do indicate that an artist or actor is better than the others, at least for that year, that's why they win the award.

Your last sentence shows where you diverge from the rest of your liberal crowd. You say equality of opportunity, they say equality of outcome.

Also, in Hollywood, there isn't equality of opportunity. Actors with good looks and muscular bodies are going to get offered better roles. If Tom cruise looked like Gilbert Godfrey, he wouldn't be the draw he is today. Would you have enjoyed the mission impossible movies as much if Dr Phil played the role of Ethan hunt?

You say the more saleable artist makes more money..I agree, but, according to liberals, they should all get the same things. Everyone should get an award. That's what they are teaching the kids these days.

You have a bizarre view of what liberals think. What is the basis of this ?

 

[ThisIsMe]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

McCarthy was wise and smart enough to see what 2021 would like. Executing Hollywood commies should have been a priority

Hollywood is the last place on earth you will find communism. The town is a tribute to capitalism and is one of the most conservative things in modern life. You are confusing communism with a few artistic people showing concern for the plight of the planet and its citizens.

Because you are damaged goods you just label it "communism" when in fact it is just normal behaviour. Its another sign that the world has moved on and left you and your arse scratching mates behind in the C20th. Get some help.

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of Hollywood. A place where nearly everyone espouses anti capitalistic and liberal views, yet all of them became rich off of a capitalistic system, and made their money portraying things they hate, and will tell you are wrong.

There you go again. Liberal views are just common decency. Held by most people across the world who dont live in your narrow partisan hate bubble.

Give me an example of these liberal views in relation to Hollywood.

No hate bubble. You want an example of what specifically? Most Hollywood types are liberal, they believe in and practice liberal policy. What examples are you looking for.

For the record, Republicans have common decency as well, the difference is how they believe society should be.

For example, liberals believe that if you have money, they should be able to take it from you, and give it to someone else. How is that "decent"? Sure, for the person receiving that money, its great, for the person who had to earn that money, or make sacrifices and take risks to make that money, not so great.

Its noble that you on the left want to help the poor, I think we should all do that, but nobody should be forced into helping the poor. Oddly, all those liberals who talk about how we need to help the poor...you don't see them reaching into their own pockets, you see them trying to make government take it from someone else.

Honestly, there is no difference between the left and the right, other than the path to solving issues. Left wing media will make you believe that all right wingers are thes monstrous hate filled, evil people who want to do harm to everyone else. Nothing could be further from the truth. Its just spin and lies from those left wing talking heads. Both sides have compassion, both sides have common decency.

The right says "just leave us alone and do what the constitution says", the left says "do what we want or were going to punish you with our cancel culture, or our labels that we will put on you to make you look bad and try to silence you."

The left is capable of, and frequently does display and enact as much or more hate than the right. For a group that claims to be about diversity, inclusion, tolerance, you only desire those things if it fits in your bubble, anyone else needs to be ostracized from society and shut out.

Your desire to force others to your way of thinking is, probably, the ultimate show of hate.

A list of films that illustrate this would help. I think yo will struggle. I cant think of a single movie that supports abortion, or gun control or any that promote an anti american view of the world..
I thnk that this demon is in your head.

I wasn't talking about movies that support gun control, or abortions, etc. I was talking about actors who support liberal policies, such as gun control, but then star in movies where violence, and gun play are glorified. If these actors really want to tell us that these things are wrong, then they need to refuse to use those items in their movies.

I am not sure where you are going with this. Acting is a job and actors play parts and not themselves. By definition every word they utter is a lie. And written for them. Your Commiewood thesis is looking short on proof at the moment.

So, you are saying you don't see the conflict of supporting liberal anti gun and anti violence policies, but then make money off of movies that depict those things? What kind of message is that saying to the rest if us.

Live by example is what I'm talking about here. When you glorify something that you advocate against, it becomes a conflict. You want to ban guns, but then Hollywood makes guns look cool, so now everyone thinks, hey, guns are cool, but then liberals say guns are bad. Liberals tell you we need to ban guns, but Hollywood says its OK to use guns to make money. Again, a conflict.

What about my post on grammys and the Oscar's? There another example for you.

I havent read that one. You now seem to be arguing that Hollywood is pro gun. That doesnt sound like a liberal stance.

No, I'm arguing that most of your actors are liberal, and as such, they support liberal policies, one if which is strict gun control, and including banning certain guns, yet, those same actors will use those same guns in movies that glorify guns and depict violence, often, brutal violence.

My point on this is, how can you be against something, but then use that very thing to make money? Yes, I understand they are just acting, but, they are using the very thing the left hates, as a prop to make money.

My point on the grammys and Oscar's is, in a liberal dominated entertainment industry, where they all preach equality, yet every year they hold awards ceremonies to recognize people who did better than others.

You have a very individual take on equality. Awards ceremonies are just marketing tools that everyone in the industry gets a benefit from. They do not indicate that one artist is better than another.
The more saleable artists get paid more, generally because they will sell more tickets than less popular artists. Tats just the way it is in art,in business and in life.

Equality is about opportunity not reward and I do not see that as partisan.

Well, they have categories like best artist, song of the year, album of the year..or, for academy awards,, best actor, best supporting actor, best picture etc.. Basically, the whole thing is to recognize singers and actors who made the best movies, and it does give them benefits. An academy award winning actor will be offered better roles, and can demand more money for their work. Grammy award winning singers will get asked to do things like movie music, sing at sporting events etc..

So, yes, they do indicate that an artist or actor is better than the others, at least for that year, that's why they win the award.

Your last sentence shows where you diverge from the rest of your liberal crowd. You say equality of opportunity, they say equality of outcome.

Also, in Hollywood, there isn't equality of opportunity. Actors with good looks and muscular bodies are going to get offered better roles. If Tom cruise looked like Gilbert Godfrey, he wouldn't be the draw he is today. Would you have enjoyed the mission impossible movies as much if Dr Phil played the role of Ethan hunt?

You say the more saleable artist makes more money..I agree, but, according to liberals, they should all get the same things. Everyone should get an award. That's what they are teaching the kids these days.

You have a bizarre view of what liberals think. What is the basis of this ?

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy

"There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

reason.com

I don't know, i guess just reading it every day here on USMB, and hearing it from liberal media. Equality has been in the public sphere for awhile now. My take is based on how liberals desire equality, but don't seem to practice it in their own lives. If equality was truly their goal, that means they would have to cancel the Grammys, the academy awards, all beauty pagents, they would have to remove themselves from all sporting events. Basically, any activity where there is competition, they should not be present, if they truly want equality.

I mean, isn't the liberal idea that, it doesn't matter how hard you work, or how much you sacrifice, everyone should have the same stuff? Am I wrong on this? Is that not the goal of liberals?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

The GOP won't win again. Dems have figured out how to expedite fraudulent elections without being held to account. If the gop wants to win, they'll do the same thing.

Nonsense. Right wing Republicans can’t win elections so they claim fraud

You just don’t have the votes. There just aren’t enough angry old white men to get it done so you have one option. Keep the opponent from voting... any way you can

So you support one party rule?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

McCarthy was wise and smart enough to see what 2021 would like. Executing Hollywood commies should have been a priority

Hollywood is the last place on earth you will find communism. The town is a tribute to capitalism and is one of the most conservative things in modern life. You are confusing communism with a few artistic people showing concern for the plight of the planet and its citizens.

Because you are damaged goods you just label it "communism" when in fact it is just normal behaviour. Its another sign that the world has moved on and left you and your arse scratching mates behind in the C20th. Get some help.

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of Hollywood. A place where nearly everyone espouses anti capitalistic and liberal views, yet all of them became rich off of a capitalistic system, and made their money portraying things they hate, and will tell you are wrong.

There you go again. Liberal views are just common decency. Held by most people across the world who dont live in your narrow partisan hate bubble.

Give me an example of these liberal views in relation to Hollywood.

No hate bubble. You want an example of what specifically? Most Hollywood types are liberal, they believe in and practice liberal policy. What examples are you looking for.

For the record, Republicans have common decency as well, the difference is how they believe society should be.

For example, liberals believe that if you have money, they should be able to take it from you, and give it to someone else. How is that "decent"? Sure, for the person receiving that money, its great, for the person who had to earn that money, or make sacrifices and take risks to make that money, not so great.

Its noble that you on the left want to help the poor, I think we should all do that, but nobody should be forced into helping the poor. Oddly, all those liberals who talk about how we need to help the poor...you don't see them reaching into their own pockets, you see them trying to make government take it from someone else.

Honestly, there is no difference between the left and the right, other than the path to solving issues. Left wing media will make you believe that all right wingers are thes monstrous hate filled, evil people who want to do harm to everyone else. Nothing could be further from the truth. Its just spin and lies from those left wing talking heads. Both sides have compassion, both sides have common decency.

The right says "just leave us alone and do what the constitution says", the left says "do what we want or were going to punish you with our cancel culture, or our labels that we will put on you to make you look bad and try to silence you."

The left is capable of, and frequently does display and enact as much or more hate than the right. For a group that claims to be about diversity, inclusion, tolerance, you only desire those things if it fits in your bubble, anyone else needs to be ostracized from society and shut out.

Your desire to force others to your way of thinking is, probably, the ultimate show of hate.

A list of films that illustrate this would help. I think yo will struggle. I cant think of a single movie that supports abortion, or gun control or any that promote an anti american view of the world..
I thnk that this demon is in your head.

I wasn't talking about movies that support gun control, or abortions, etc. I was talking about actors who support liberal policies, such as gun control, but then star in movies where violence, and gun play are glorified. If these actors really want to tell us that these things are wrong, then they need to refuse to use those items in their movies.

I am not sure where you are going with this. Acting is a job and actors play parts and not themselves. By definition every word they utter is a lie. And written for them. Your Commiewood thesis is looking short on proof at the moment.

So, you are saying you don't see the conflict of supporting liberal anti gun and anti violence policies, but then make money off of movies that depict those things? What kind of message is that saying to the rest if us.

Live by example is what I'm talking about here. When you glorify something that you advocate against, it becomes a conflict. You want to ban guns, but then Hollywood makes guns look cool, so now everyone thinks, hey, guns are cool, but then liberals say guns are bad. Liberals tell you we need to ban guns, but Hollywood says its OK to use guns to make money. Again, a conflict.

What about my post on grammys and the Oscar's? There another example for you.

I havent read that one. You now seem to be arguing that Hollywood is pro gun. That doesnt sound like a liberal stance.

No, I'm arguing that most of your actors are liberal, and as such, they support liberal policies, one if which is strict gun control, and including banning certain guns, yet, those same actors will use those same guns in movies that glorify guns and depict violence, often, brutal violence.

My point on this is, how can you be against something, but then use that very thing to make money? Yes, I understand they are just acting, but, they are using the very thing the left hates, as a prop to make money.

My point on the grammys and Oscar's is, in a liberal dominated entertainment industry, where they all preach equality, yet every year they hold awards ceremonies to recognize people who did better than others.

You have a very individual take on equality. Awards ceremonies are just marketing tools that everyone in the industry gets a benefit from. They do not indicate that one artist is better than another.
The more saleable artists get paid more, generally because they will sell more tickets than less popular artists. Tats just the way it is in art,in business and in life.

Equality is about opportunity not reward and I do not see that as partisan.

Well, they have categories like best artist, song of the year, album of the year..or, for academy awards,, best actor, best supporting actor, best picture etc.. Basically, the whole thing is to recognize singers and actors who made the best movies, and it does give them benefits. An academy award winning actor will be offered better roles, and can demand more money for their work. Grammy award winning singers will get asked to do things like movie music, sing at sporting events etc..

So, yes, they do indicate that an artist or actor is better than the others, at least for that year, that's why they win the award.

Your last sentence shows where you diverge from the rest of your liberal crowd. You say equality of opportunity, they say equality of outcome.

Also, in Hollywood, there isn't equality of opportunity. Actors with good looks and muscular bodies are going to get offered better roles. If Tom cruise looked like Gilbert Godfrey, he wouldn't be the draw he is today. Would you have enjoyed the mission impossible movies as much if Dr Phil played the role of Ethan hunt?

You say the more saleable artist makes more money..I agree, but, according to liberals, they should all get the same things. Everyone should get an award. That's what they are teaching the kids these days.

You have a bizarre view of what liberals think. What is the basis of this ?

Islamist, you’re not liberal. So how would you know what liberals think?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

In 1952, the political mainstream was inflamed by the boorishness and recklessness of another conservative demagogue: Wisconsin’s Sen. Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his infamous communist “witch hunt” within the federal government. McCarthy would eventually overreach to the extent that he was overwhelmingly censured by the Senate, including roughly half of its members from his own party.

One prominent conservative willing to defend McCarthy, much to the chagrin of nearly everybody to the left of the John Birch Society, was Irving Kristol. The godfather of neoconservatism wrote contemporaneously in Commentary that “there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: He, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing.”

To Kristol, the certainty McCarthy signaled was worth commending, despite his argument’s lack of substance or his corrosive rhetorical style. McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist, but that was almost secondary to how thoroughly he infuriated his opponents, leaving no question as to where he stood. And given the incentives presented by social media toward ever more extreme political positions, it’s no wonder such stark, if reductive, contrasts are even more appealing today, to the extent that a spiritual heir of McCarthy’s could even win the White House.

How ‘Owning the Libs’ Became the GOP’s Core Belief

The weird journey of a tongue-in-cheek catchphrase from conservative-mocking putdown to the defining tenet of the Republican Party’s way of life.

www.politico.com

Interesting take on how someone like Donald Trump could win the Presidency. The politics of division have been going on for years.

Why run a platform when painting the opposition as the enemy has become an effective tool for winning elections. In a corporate duopoly there are only two options.

The GOP is going to win again. Its a “when” not an “if”

McCarthy was wise and smart enough to see what 2021 would like. Executing Hollywood commies should have been a priority

Hollywood is the last place on earth you will find communism. The town is a tribute to capitalism and is one of the most conservative things in modern life. You are confusing communism with a few artistic people showing concern for the plight of the planet and its citizens.

Because you are damaged goods you just label it "communism" when in fact it is just normal behaviour. Its another sign that the world has moved on and left you and your arse scratching mates behind in the C20th. Get some help.

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of Hollywood. A place where nearly everyone espouses anti capitalistic and liberal views, yet all of them became rich off of a capitalistic system, and made their money portraying things they hate, and will tell you are wrong.

There you go again. Liberal views are just common decency. Held by most people across the world who dont live in your narrow partisan hate bubble.

Give me an example of these liberal views in relation to Hollywood.

No hate bubble. You want an example of what specifically? Most Hollywood types are liberal, they believe in and practice liberal policy. What examples are you looking for.

For the record, Republicans have common decency as well, the difference is how they believe society should be.

For example, liberals believe that if you have money, they should be able to take it from you, and give it to someone else. How is that "decent"? Sure, for the person receiving that money, its great, for the person who had to earn that money, or make sacrifices and take risks to make that money, not so great.

Its noble that you on the left want to help the poor, I think we should all do that, but nobody should be forced into helping the poor. Oddly, all those liberals who talk about how we need to help the poor...you don't see them reaching into their own pockets, you see them trying to make government take it from someone else.

Honestly, there is no difference between the left and the right, other than the path to solving issues. Left wing media will make you believe that all right wingers are thes monstrous hate filled, evil people who want to do harm to everyone else. Nothing could be further from the truth. Its just spin and lies from those left wing talking heads. Both sides have compassion, both sides have common decency.

The right says "just leave us alone and do what the constitution says", the left says "do what we want or were going to punish you with our cancel culture, or our labels that we will put on you to make you look bad and try to silence you."

The left is capable of, and frequently does display and enact as much or more hate than the right. For a group that claims to be about diversity, inclusion, tolerance, you only desire those things if it fits in your bubble, anyone else needs to be ostracized from society and shut out.

Your desire to force others to your way of thinking is, probably, the ultimate show of hate.

A list of films that illustrate this would help. I think yo will struggle. I cant think of a single movie that supports abortion, or gun control or any that promote an anti american view of the world..
I thnk that this demon is in your head.

I wasn't talking about movies that support gun control, or abortions, etc. I was talking about actors who support liberal policies, such as gun control, but then star in movies where violence, and gun play are glorified. If these actors really want to tell us that these things are wrong, then they need to refuse to use those items in their movies.

I am not sure where you are going with this. Acting is a job and actors play parts and not themselves. By definition every word they utter is a lie. And written for them. Your Commiewood thesis is looking short on proof at the moment.

So, you are saying you don't see the conflict of supporting liberal anti gun and anti violence policies, but then make money off of movies that depict those things? What kind of message is that saying to the rest if us.

Live by example is what I'm talking about here. When you glorify something that you advocate against, it becomes a conflict. You want to ban guns, but then Hollywood makes guns look cool, so now everyone thinks, hey, guns are cool, but then liberals say guns are bad. Liberals tell you we need to ban guns, but Hollywood says its OK to use guns to make money. Again, a conflict.

What about my post on grammys and the Oscar's? There another example for you.

I havent read that one. You now seem to be arguing that Hollywood is pro gun. That doesnt sound like a liberal stance.

No, I'm arguing that most of your actors are liberal, and as such, they support liberal policies, one if which is strict gun control, and including banning certain guns, yet, those same actors will use those same guns in movies that glorify guns and depict violence, often, brutal violence.

My point on this is, how can you be against something, but then use that very thing to make money? Yes, I understand they are just acting, but, they are using the very thing the left hates, as a prop to make money.

My point on the grammys and Oscar's is, in a liberal dominated entertainment industry, where they all preach equality, yet every year they hold awards ceremonies to recognize people who did better than others.

You have a very individual take on equality. Awards ceremonies are just marketing tools that everyone in the industry gets a benefit from. They do not indicate that one artist is better than another.
The more saleable artists get paid more, generally because they will sell more tickets than less popular artists. Tats just the way it is in art,in business and in life.

Equality is about opportunity not reward and I do not see that as partisan.

Well, they have categories like best artist, song of the year, album of the year..or, for academy awards,, best actor, best supporting actor, best picture etc.. Basically, the whole thing is to recognize singers and actors who made the best movies, and it does give them benefits. An academy award winning actor will be offered better roles, and can demand more money for their work. Grammy award winning singers will get asked to do things like movie music, sing at sporting events etc..

So, yes, they do indicate that an artist or actor is better than the others, at least for that year, that's why they win the award.

Your last sentence shows where you diverge from the rest of your liberal crowd. You say equality of opportunity, they say equality of outcome.

Also, in Hollywood, there isn't equality of opportunity. Actors with good looks and muscular bodies are going to get offered better roles. If Tom cruise looked like Gilbert Godfrey, he wouldn't be the draw he is today. Would you have enjoyed the mission impossible movies as much if Dr Phil played the role of Ethan hunt?

You say the more saleable artist makes more money..I agree, but, according to liberals, they should all get the same things. Everyone should get an award. That's what they are teaching the kids these days.

You have a bizarre view of what liberals think. What is the basis of this ?

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy

"There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

reason.com

I don't know, i guess just reading it every day here on USMB, and hearing it from liberal media. Equality has been in the public sphere for awhile now. My take is based on how liberals desire equality, but don't seem to practice it in their own lives. If equality was truly their goal, that means they would have to cancel the Grammys, the academy awards, all beauty pagents, they would have to remove themselves from all sporting events. Basically, any activity where there is competition, they should not be present, if they truly want equality.

I mean, isn't the liberal idea that, it doesn't matter how hard you work, or how much you sacrifice, everyone should have the same stuff? Am I wrong on this? Is that not the goal of liberals?

I think you are reading the wrong sources. I have never seen anything that suggests that. Maybe in some hippy commune perhaps ?
Equality is a moving feast though. As our society develops our perception of what is fair also changes.

In the UK our society is not fair and we dont have quality, neither do you. We learn this from stats. Putting aside how we get there we can all agree that if more black than white folk die from a particular disease then something is amiss. Starting from that point we can find solutions.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Islamist, you’re not liberal. So how would you know what liberals think?

Don't you know, man, John Rawls and John Stuart Mill were all ABOUT calling people names if they did not support female genital mutilation, honor killings or (especially) the rape of children!