Liberalism, Poverty, and Babies

[thereisnospoon]

So, wouldn't the best way to discourage homosexual promiscuity be to promote, legalize, and mainstream same sex marriage?

As long as the citizens of a state vote for same,...fine.

But no judges imposing their will over that of the people.



Now then....would you care to comment on the list of aims of the communist party....and how they parallel the aims of your party?

I invented the game of posting the party platform of the KKK and asking conservatives to tell me how many of their planks that they as conservatives agreed with.

Funny thing, no conservatives ever wanted to play.

Sucks when your little mischievous mind decides to hit the bees nest with a baseball bat and the bees refuse to play your stupid little game.
Wanna know why that is? Because the bees are too BUSY. They are WORKING and CREATING. Through their work they are making a better life for themselves.

 

[Clementine]

The article didn't go far enough to talk about the real reason why so many young girls have babies outside of a stable marriage, or at least a stable income.

Government subsidizes them. I think it's why we haven't been able to tackle the problem of poverty in this country. The more babies, the bigger the check. I would like someone to have the courage to do a study and find out how many of these poor people had children knowing they would be able to receive money from government and then kept having more because the check would increase and they'd receive aid for a longer period of time. I think it's encouraged because getting welfare is a sure thing, unlike trying to achieve something on your own. While many envy the lifestyles of the middle class, they never attempt to achieve that.

They believe they will fail.

Could that have anything to do with the way the left teaches them that they are victims of an unfair society and that they might as well hang it up because they can't succeed? Many rely on government programs, not just to pay their way, but supposedly to prepare them for a working life. Never seems to come to fruition and it's less likely now that the work requirement is gone from the system.

Now we have Planned Parenthood telling our youth that a promiscuous lifestyle is perfectly okay. Making bad choices acceptable hasn't done anything other than to increase the number of poor and increase the tax burden on the rest of us.

At what point will liberals admit we're on the wrong track? Unless this is the plan and they want people dependent on government. What other explanation is there?

It's the left that was more concerned with removing the stigma of being dependent and the left that made it easier to obtain welfare. Then they made it difficult to get off welfare. I remember a woman in the local news a few years back who was upset because she was actually told not to take the good job she was offered or she'd lose benefits. They told her if she stayed on welfare another year, she could still get money for childcare when she started working. Why the wait if not to encourage her to stay on welfare instead of making it on her own? So, her choices were to either take the job and face some serious hardships since she'd be cut off immediately from any help, or wait longer and risk not finding another good job, just so she could have an easier transition.

Most opt to stay on welfare as long as possible, even if it means having another baby when your youngest nears the age of 18. I've seen it and I bet it happens all over the country. No one wants to look at the issue too hard for fear they won't like the truth.

We also have 5th and 6th generation welfare recipients. How can a child learn to be independent when the parents are unable to teach them? I don't think it's difficult to see why we have so many poor who aren't desirable to employers. And, yes, I blame the liberals.

Being born poor sucks, and many of us start out that way. What keeps people poor is their mindset, such as an assumption of victimhood and a notion that they are owed something. Some have been taught that it's government's job to care for them or that people owe them for the sins of their ancestors. What isn't ever taught by liberals is that it's okay to be an American first and minority second or that it's okay to go out there and fail a few times before you make it. Liberals teach that the world is unfair and people are too stupid to do things for themselves. Those who believe liberal crap are likely to be poor. The liberal supporters have waited decades for the better life promised to them by liberals and, to this day, don't understand that government cannot make their lives better. Only they can, but they need to stay in school, drop the victimhood shit, speak English (no ebonics), lose the negative attitude, the entitlement mentality and get off their asses and do something for themselves.

 

[Pogo]

The basic family values endorsed by conservatives begin with waiting until marriage to have children. Today...giving birth marks the different between classes, between the well off and the poor.

Care to see a Liberal view of the situation?

1. "....The New York Times ran a story under the provocative headline, “For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside of Marriage.” The article suggested childbearing outside of marriage was the “new normal”—

[ According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2009 was 37.1 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.8 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 82 percent. ]American FactFinder - Results *


2. .... but sociologist Kathryn Edin ... professor of public policy and management at Harvard Kennedy School and a prominent scholar of the American family.... points out that 94 percent of births to college-educated women today occur within marriage (a rate virtually unchanged from a generation ago), whereas the real change has taken place at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.

3. In 1960 it didn’t matter whether you were rich or poor, college-educated or a high-school dropout—almost all American women waited until they were married to have kids. Now 57 percent of women with high-school degrees or less education are unmarried when they bear their first child.

[ June of 1962 Port Huron was an early convention of SDS, a small group of alienated, left-wing college students, 59 from 11 campuses. Its offshoot and legitimate heir, the Weathermen, organized the Days of Rage riots in Chicago. Seems a lot of the 'rage' was against values.]

4. ... conservative political scientist Charles Murray ’65 advances in his recent book 'Coming Apart' that poor Americans value marriage less than the middle class does.

[Seems obvious, no?]

5. Edin argues that the poor place tremendous value on marriage—but often see it as unobtainable. “The poor all say they want marriages like middle-class people have, marriages that will last,” Edin says. “Middle-class people are searching longer for their partners, they’re marrying people more like themselves, and as a result marriages have gotten happier and more stable.”

[Really? Lower economic classes place tremendous value on marriage? Really?]


6. [Edin] cites a range of obstacles that prevent the poor from realizing their marital aspirations, including the low quality of many of their existing relationships; norms they hold about the standard of living necessary to support a marriage; the challenges of integrating kids from past relationships into new ones; and an aversion to divorce.

[Does this seem to be a series of excuses? What standard of living is necessary to marry?]


7. But ... they continue to see bearing and raising children as the most meaningful activity in their lives. ... given their bleak economic prospects and minimal hope of upward mobility, being a parent is one of the few positive identities available to them. Middle-class women have substantial economic incentives to delay childbearing (a woman who gives birth right after college earns half as much in her lifetime as the classmate who waits until her mid thirties), but those incentives don’t exist for poor women.

[But their 'bleak economic prospects begin with having children out of wedlock. And those 'middle-class women....somehow they have incentives??]


8. “Early childbearing is highly selective of girls whose characteristics—family background, cognitive ability, school performance, mental-health status, and so on—have already diminished their life chances so much that an early birth does little to reduce them further.”

[So, what the heck, continue down the path of poverty...no responsibility, no recriminations....]

9. .... 15-year-old André, who rejoiced to learn his ex-girlfriend was pregnant.... “He was embracing life and rejecting death,” she explains. “He could have been out there dealing drugs but instead he’s diapering his baby and learning how to twist her hair.

[Heart-warming tale....I wonder if the child will see it that way.]

10. The only way disadvantaged Americans will delay childbearing, she argues, is if they see other, equally positive, paths available. “There’s either guns or babies, and if people have to make that choice, they’re going to choose babies,” she says. “As long as we sustain such high rates of inequality, it’s going to be really hard to get youth at the bottom to buy into a system that’s unavailable to them. "

[Liberalism's answer: No darn way out in America: it's either 'guns or babies.']
Kathryn Edin explains the increase in births out of wedlock | Harvard Magazine Jul-Aug 2012

Gee...I don't know....how about if Liberal elites stopped finding excuses for why bad choices are their 'only' choices.
Sound like a plan?

" I tell you what affirmative action is, soft bigotry, low expectations. Affirmative action is a racist insult disguised as social justice by the Democrats." The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations - The Rush Limbaugh Show

So you have a page full of exceprts from an article about socio-cultural commentary, with a non sequitur about Port Huron (?) and just because you post it in the Politics forum you think it has something to do with "liberalism"?

Where?

Btw you think putting the word "really?" in brackets after a point actually refutes it?

sigh...

What a poor apologist for Liberalism you are.

You can run but you can't hide.

The article in question was a series of excuses for poor behavior, terrible life choices, by a professional Liberal:

"...sociologist Kathryn Edin ... professor of public policy and management at Harvard Kennedy School..."


As usual, you, a Liberal....feel the sting of what is clearly a plan to keep the lower classes in poverty by endorsing, excusing the very behavior that will keep them there generation after generation.


You cannot defend the article, the import....
So...you try to blame the messenger....lil' ol' me?

You failed.

Liberalism fails.

Those who follow Liberalism's precepts are doomed to be failures.

Uh-- no dear, YOU failed. I challenged you to show how or where any of this has to do with "liberalism" -- you came up with nothing. A reference to somebody's job at a school, as if that's supposed to be an answer. The fact that you declare her a "professional Liberal" (as if "liberal" is a job) establishes nothing but your own speciousness.

I make no attempt to "defend the article". I'm really not interested. What catches my eye is a ball of fallacies playing yarn ball to your kitten. Amusing in a slapstick way, but that's about it.

And btw, Liberals don't support Affirmative Action. Don't know where you get that idea.

Shall I answer the question for you, since you're incapable?

You and your ilk try to paint everything you don't understand, every little change in social mores you find alarming, to the bogeyman "liberals" -- even when it's got nothing to do with politics. Y'all learn this ad hominem crap at the feet of your Messiah Lush Rimjob and follow him like he's the freaking pied piper. But it's still the same fallacy it always was.

You're afraid of the dark and need to anthropomorphize your irrational fears into a scapegoat creature, a devil you can throw darts at. It's the tactic of intellectual sloth, as the clerics of millennia past used to control the ignorant masses with Beëlzebubs and Satans. And you pulled it out right at the start. Apparently making up ogres is the only way you can deal with your own failings of understanding. So everything evil becomes "liberal". never mind that you don't even understand what the word means. A dartboard is a dartboard.

"Liberal" is what founded this country, Toots. You don't like it, hop a plane to Pyonyang.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So? Most governments that manage to keep capitalism in check are not Marxist.

it is not TRUE, so.

that's baloney, in other words.

If you would like to convince me that 1) the US has no regulations on business,

or, 2) that the US is a Marxist nation...I'm all ears.

As of now the US is not marxist. But the Obamabots would like it to be...
Tell me the following is not music to your ears. "From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs"...

 

[NYcarbineer]

A wonder full system....some elected dolt picks another dolt to be on the court....and you genuflect to both of them.


Here....let's give you an example of that:

And what system would work better? Do you want to end judicial review?

Simple: follow the Constitution.


In A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Justice Antonin Scalia criticizes the tendency of federal judges to ignore the text of the Constitution or statues and to adopt “the attitude of the common-law judge -- the mind-set that asks, ‘What is the most desirable resolution of this case, and how can any impediments to the achievement of that result be evaded?’”
Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, edited by Amy Gutmann (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 13. (Hereafter cited in the text as Scalia.)



Do you know what "Lochnerization" means?

That's not a system. How do you plan to force the People to elect a President and Congress that will appoint and approve the judges you and your rightwing pals deem acceptable?

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. 'The Left embraces socialism, the herd mentality of slavery. Socialism and the other totalist modes offers the incalculable benefit of freedom from thought. There are no more disquieting choices, no contradictions, there is the simple act of submission to the herd, in which the ideas of all are the same, and, therefore, equal.'
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."



]

The Right embraces capitalism, which by its design creates a gap between rich and poor that unchecked only increases over time.

Wealth is directly proportionate to power, and capitalism concentrates wealth, which thus concentrates power,

which facilitates further concentration of wealth, and thus a further concentration of power.

The single most important purpose of democratic government is to thwart that power/wealth cycle.

It was not capitalism that ended slavery; it was democratic government that took slavery away from the capitalists.

Cut the bullshit.....
Capitalism is highly regulated.
So what if there is a gap between rich and poor?....Those that achieve and succeed have the right to become as well off financially as their ability permits.
Capitalism DOES NOT concentrate wealth. That is the Keynesian theory of the 'zero sum game'...It has been debunked.
Here is an example of what I find amusing about the left's anti capitalism viewpoint...
Your side curses the business owner for turning a profit. You ignore the fact that the employee has no skin in the game. If he or she loses their job because the business can no longer turn a profit, they simply walk away and seek other employment. The business owner suffers sometimes irreparable financial damage.
Your side screams "CAPITALIST BASTARD deserved it"..
Meanwhile this past summer we had these silly fast food worker protests where they demanded a $15 per hour minimum wage....Now, do you want to explain how those people are NOT capitalists?
You leftists say 'we deserve this'. And "we demand that"....yet when challenged to go out and earn it, you have no response other than vitriolic spew.

Don't lie about what I believe.

 

[Pogo]

And another thing....

You'd sound ever so much more intelligent if you restricted yourself to terms you understood.....actually, I've seen your posts....and nothing would help.

Even so, " with a non sequitur about Port Huron (?)..."

First: non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwitər/
noun
1.a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

Well, the article states that " In 1960....."
And I provided an indication as to why things changed after that: "June of 1962 Port Huron was an early convention of SDS, a small group of alienated, left-wing college students,...."

So, clearly my reference to Port Huron was related to changes subsequent to 1960.

Clearly, whatever you were babbling about Port Huron has nothing to do with the rest of the article. It's unrelated. Does not follow, does not set up, has no function.

Is this completely over your head then?

Now...your (?) indicates that you are unaware of the significance of Port Huron.
Take notes here.

1. One member of SDS gave this prescription: “four-square against anti-Communism, eight-square against American-culture, twelve-square against sell-out unions, one hundred and twenty against an interpretation of the Cold War that saw it as a Soviet plot and identified American policy fondly.”
Todd Gitlin, “The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage,” p. 109-110

Here comes: Liberalism blooming out of adolescent rebellion!

2. A draft of the meeting can be found at Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962. It sets forth an agenda for changing human nature, the nation, and the world. In it, one can hear the ignorance and arrogance so inherent in adolescents: the euphoria due to being convinced of their own wisdom, moral purity, and ability to change everything.
The above better explained in "Slouching Toward Gomorrah," Bork.

3. Those savages went on to become the disseminators of information.

a. "The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.” Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.

To review:

a. I engaged in no 'non sequiturs'

b. The Port Huron savages gave us the Democrat Party of today, and, largely, the same endorsement of out of wedlock births that ensure poverty on the lower classes.

That's a nice comic book fantasy, but inserting your own specious conclusion ("b" above) and proceeding to crown yourself the winner doesn't really count in this world, sorry to break the bad news. What you have there is unfounded ipse dixit. Does not function.

Btw there's no such thing as the "Democrat Party". Never has been. And no party, real or imagined, has any say in who gives birth in or out of wedlock. Once again you're talking social mores, not politics.

But nice try on exercising Danth's Law while proffering an ignorance so basic you don't even know what the names of the political parties are.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Political Chic, that was a most depressing post. Enough to start thinking of a social experiment. What if...

In the curriculum, LIfe Classes begin: Ways out of Poverty; Education is the Way; Strong Families; When to have Children; Career Choices; Life Mates; Financial Decisions, Your reputation; etc.

If we have to teach these things we have to! A controversial section in one class would be having girls (with parents permission) implanted with IUD's in 9th grade.

I have always been against social engineering in the schools. Schools are for academics. But things are not getting any better in the lower class. Students are not learning the positive things they should at home. So, I guess, it's up to the schools.

But the warning is out. The social learning should increase the school day and it does not include the liberal ideologue!

Does this fit your 'Ways out of Poverty' course?

Brookings whittled down a lot of analysis into three simple rules. You can avoid poverty by:
1. Graduating from high school.
2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.
3. Having a full-time job.
If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you’ll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class.


Read more at Jacksonville.com: Three rules for staying out of poverty | members.jacksonville.com



BTW....did you notice how difficult Obama has made step 3?

"There are now 28 million people working part time versus 116.2 million full-timers. Once all the incentives of the ACA kick in by 2015, those figures could switch by perhaps as much as 10 million, turning into 38 million part-timers versus 106.2 million full-timers—bringing a noticeable decrease in the total number of productive hours workers spend on the job."
More Part-Time Jobs With Obamacare - WSJ.com

Ah, but...if you're an adult with children and your fulltime job doesn't include healthcare coverage,

or pay enough that you can afford to purchase it, then you're going to be among the working poor, or close to it,

and you're still going to end up qualifying for government assistance in the form of Medicaid and the like.

And I say that is a legitimate reason to participate in Medicaid.
Let's be clear on one salient point...
The use of the phrase "job does not pay enough for..." is a class envy talking point....
The proper and accurate phrase is " does not earn enough"..This places the onus on the individual. Right where it should be..

 

[Vox]

So? Most governments that manage to keep capitalism in check are not Marxist.

it is not TRUE, so.

that's baloney, in other words.

If you would like to convince me that 1) the US has no regulations on business,

or, 2) that the US is a Marxist nation...I'm all ears.

I would not want you to convince you on anything - it is impossible if you derive those 2 "conclusions" from what I have said.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What's wrong with judges 'imposing their will' over that of the people? The Supreme Court imposed its will over the city of Chicago when it overturned the city's handgun ban.

I going to guess that the degree of your problem with judges and their 'will' fluctuates according to whether it conflicts or acts in accord with your agenda.

The handgun ban in Chicago was never the will of the people. It was the will of local politicians.
The Court ruled the ban was a violation of Chicagoans Second Amendment rights.
What's wrong with judges 'imposing their will' over that of the people?
Two answers...1. Only when it suits your point of view
.......................2. What's right with it?

Do you have any idea how government works?

Do you ever tire of being wrong all the time?

 

[sportman835]

What's funny is that in the bible days many children was a sign of wealth.

 

[National Socialist]

I am married and have 3 kids still poor...so that says to me this "expert" is full of shit.

If you are poor, why are you spending money on such luxuries as pay tv and internet?
That's $100 per month you could be using for necessities. Or putting away for a rainy day.
People that bitch about being poor that spend their money unwisely or use credit cards to live beyond their means are IDIOTS...

Make life more tolerable. I don't have ANY credit cards...I would use them if I could get them.I care nothing about my credit,I care about getting what I want when I want. To hell with everyone else that isn't my family.

you are a lazy leftard dumbfuck, so your marital status is irrelevant

None of the above actually. I am a National Socialist not a leftist moron. You obviously didn't read the stuff she posted.

Maybe you should have held off on having kids until you could afford them.

Which would be never as things continue to get more expensive. I would rather be poor but make sure my blood line continues .

No, you are a typical selfish person who only thought of themselves.
"I want".....That is what you felt when you decided to bring kids into this world..
That type of narcissism is typical of leftists.
You people never consider the consequences of your actions.
Rule number one. If you are financially unable to properly raise children, you do not create them. PERIOD.

If I had waited until I was financially able to have kids I never would have. That's what the jew wants. Whites to stop having kids.

Not according to me, but according to it's economic form which is socialism with government protectionism of selected private entities. It existed only 12 years and 5 of that was during the war - way too short of the time to evolve into the standard socialist model

but that is way too much for you to comprehend on your current stage of infatuation.

National Socialism is a 3rd way. Not left or right.

Stop disguising your hate for all things not Caucasian.
You're initial posts with a swastika in your avatar were not forgotten.
Neither were your anti Semitic remarks.
Isn't time for you to visit the tattoo parlor again.
You nazi fucks are just another evil street gang.

Lol..you like that Swastika? I can go back to it if you want...you mean exposing the jew which is according to you "anti semitic" tough shit,It is indeed time to get new ink. I got 3 tats I need covered up...happens when you let idiot friends tattoo you...maybe in February...not sure what I want yet though...A swastika eventually yes but not yet.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What's wrong with judges 'imposing their will' over that of the people? The Supreme Court imposed its will over the city of Chicago when it overturned the city's handgun ban.

I going to guess that the degree of your problem with judges and their 'will' fluctuates according to whether it conflicts or acts in accord with your agenda.

The handgun ban in Chicago was never the will of the people. It was the will of local politicians.
The Court ruled the ban was a violation of Chicagoans Second Amendment rights.
What's wrong with judges 'imposing their will' over that of the people?
Two answers...1. Only when it suits your point of view
.......................2. What's right with it?

Do you have any idea how government works?

Do you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you have a page full of exceprts from an article about socio-cultural commentary, with a non sequitur about Port Huron (?) and just because you post it in the Politics forum you think it has something to do with "liberalism"?

Where?

Btw you think putting the word "really?" in brackets after a point actually refutes it?

sigh...

What a poor apologist for Liberalism you are.

You can run but you can't hide.

The article in question was a series of excuses for poor behavior, terrible life choices, by a professional Liberal:

"...sociologist Kathryn Edin ... professor of public policy and management at Harvard Kennedy School..."


As usual, you, a Liberal....feel the sting of what is clearly a plan to keep the lower classes in poverty by endorsing, excusing the very behavior that will keep them there generation after generation.


You cannot defend the article, the import....
So...you try to blame the messenger....lil' ol' me?

You failed.

Liberalism fails.

Those who follow Liberalism's precepts are doomed to be failures.

"Liberal" is what founded this country, Toots. You don't like it, hop a plane to Pyonyang.

Classical Liberals. Not Modern Liberals. Ironically enough classical liberalism was based on maximizing the freedom of the individual by lessening the role of government. A Conservative/Republican/Libertarian ideal today. It's unsettling that you know so little about your own party's history. You would most likely be a progressive liberal, who believes in maximizing the freedom of an individual by increasing the role of government. Yes, liberals did found this country, but not of the kind you're thinking of. If any of these classical liberals were still alive, the would deem people like you as a liability to liberty, not an asset.

I will add that in the late 1700's there were no such things as "political parties." So to attribute our founders to one party or another would be misguided.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

What's your plan to make things better?

Return to a free market economy, so young men (who are more likely to be business owners) will be able to either run their own businesses or market their talents and skills without a mountain of "license" fees and requirements.

Men will then be more likely to marry a woman when they are younger, since they'll be able to support them.

Returning to a free market economy also means returning to gold and silver backed currency, or, in the meantime, a stable dollar.

 

[Black_Label]

What's your plan to make things better?

Sounds like it's time to implement the right wing's dream of sharia law on the nation and make premarital sex a crime that deserves death by stoning.

 

[Pogo]

What a poor apologist for Liberalism you are.

You can run but you can't hide.

The article in question was a series of excuses for poor behavior, terrible life choices, by a professional Liberal:

"...sociologist Kathryn Edin ... professor of public policy and management at Harvard Kennedy School..."


As usual, you, a Liberal....feel the sting of what is clearly a plan to keep the lower classes in poverty by endorsing, excusing the very behavior that will keep them there generation after generation.


You cannot defend the article, the import....
So...you try to blame the messenger....lil' ol' me?

You failed.

Liberalism fails.

Those who follow Liberalism's precepts are doomed to be failures.

"Liberal" is what founded this country, Toots. You don't like it, hop a plane to Pyonyang.

Classical Liberals. Not Modern Liberals. Ironically enough classical liberalism was based on maximizing the freedom of the individual by lessening the role of government. A Conservative/Republican/Libertarian ideal today. It's unsettling that you know so little about your own party's history. You would most likely be a progressive liberal, who believes in maximizing the freedom of an individual by increasing the role of government. Yes, liberals did found this country, but not of the kind you're thinking of. If any of these classical liberals were still alive, the would deem people like you as a liability to liberty, not an asset.

I will add that in the late 1700's there were no such things as "political parties." So to attribute our founders to one party or another would be misguided.

"Classical", Schmassical. I don't buy that revisionist-definition bullshit. Liberal is liberal, regardless of certain quarters' attempts to demonize it.

It's unsettling that you know so little about your own party's history

When did I acquire a "party"? Haven't I made it clear I'm not a joiner? Have I not railed against the duopoly enough? Where did I bring up "party" at all?

Let me get this straight -- you're twenty-six years old and you're going to lecture me on political science?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you have a page full of exceprts from an article about socio-cultural commentary, with a non sequitur about Port Huron (?) and just because you post it in the Politics forum you think it has something to do with "liberalism"?

Where?

Btw you think putting the word "really?" in brackets after a point actually refutes it?

sigh...

What a poor apologist for Liberalism you are.

You can run but you can't hide.

The article in question was a series of excuses for poor behavior, terrible life choices, by a professional Liberal:

"...sociologist Kathryn Edin ... professor of public policy and management at Harvard Kennedy School..."


As usual, you, a Liberal....feel the sting of what is clearly a plan to keep the lower classes in poverty by endorsing, excusing the very behavior that will keep them there generation after generation.


You cannot defend the article, the import....
So...you try to blame the messenger....lil' ol' me?

You failed.

Liberalism fails.

Those who follow Liberalism's precepts are doomed to be failures.

Uh-- no dear, YOU failed. I challenged you to show how or where any of this has to do with "liberalism" -- you came up with nothing. A reference to somebody's job at a school, as if that's supposed to be an answer. The fact that you declare her a "professional Liberal" (as if "liberal" is a job) establishes nothing but your own speciousness.

I make no attempt to "defend the article". I'm really not interested. What catches my eye is a ball of fallacies playing yarn ball to your kitten. Amusing in a slapstick way, but that's about it.

And btw, Liberals don't support Affirmative Action. Don't know where you get that idea.

Shall I answer the question for you, since you're incapable?

You and your ilk try to paint everything you don't understand, every little change in social mores you find alarming, to the bogeyman "liberals" -- even when it's got nothing to do with politics. Y'all learn this ad hominem crap at the feet of your Messiah Lush Rimjob and follow him like he's the freaking pied piper. But it's still the same fallacy it always was.

You're afraid of the dark and need to anthropomorphize your irrational fears into a scapegoat creature, a devil you can throw darts at. It's the tactic of intellectual sloth, as the clerics of millennia past used to control the ignorant masses with Beëlzebubs and Satans. And you pulled it out right at the start. Apparently making up ogres is the only way you can deal with your own failings of understanding. So everything evil becomes "liberal". never mind that you don't even understand what the word means. A dartboard is a dartboard.

"Liberal" is what founded this country, Toots. You don't like it, hop a plane to Pyonyang.

Proving that you are clueless seems akin to gilding the lily....totally excessive, as you prove it yourself time and again.


For example: ""Liberal" is what founded this country,...."

Of course, that is bogus.

The appellation under which you fly is the name that communist John Dewey substituted for the original name, 'socialism.'


Class is back in session, get your pencil, and take notes:



1. Unlike classical liberalism, which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone ‘evolve.’ Thus progressive reformers saw the home as the front line in the war to transform men into compliant social organs.

a. One answer was to get children out of the home as quickly as possible, so that the home could no longer be an island, separate and sovereign from the rest of society.

b. John Dewey helped create kindergartens to help shape children for the new ‘society.’ Dewey, of course, was a favorite of the USSR.

c. This can be seen in Woodrow Wilson’s speech as president of Princeton: “Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life…[but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.” (Michael McGerr, “A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920,” p. 111




2.Classical liberalism....conservatism.
a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked [classical]liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias.

Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.

c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding.

Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


d. “DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms--…”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


3. Progressives interpreted liberty as license, thus destroying the moral rules that make freedom a virtue.
From “The World Turned Upside Down,” by Melanie Phillips. p.284





Now, what have you learned?

1. Classical Liberals, i.e., conservatives, founded this nation based on individualism, private property, and limits on power.

Note how these ideas are the very antithesis of those advanced by what is called "liberalism" today.

2. Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding


3. And, most particularly....we've learned...proven....that you are an ass.



Ready for the quiz?

 

[Peterf]

What a poor apologist for Liberalism you are.

You can run but you can't hide.

The article in question was a series of excuses for poor behavior, terrible life choices, by a professional Liberal:

"...sociologist Kathryn Edin ... professor of public policy and management at Harvard Kennedy School..."


As usual, you, a Liberal....feel the sting of what is clearly a plan to keep the lower classes in poverty by endorsing, excusing the very behavior that will keep them there generation after generation.


You cannot defend the article, the import....
So...you try to blame the messenger....lil' ol' me?

You failed.

Liberalism fails.

Those who follow Liberalism's precepts are doomed to be failures.

Uh-- no dear, YOU failed. I challenged you to show how or where any of this has to do with "liberalism" -- you came up with nothing. A reference to somebody's job at a school, as if that's supposed to be an answer. The fact that you declare her a "professional Liberal" (as if "liberal" is a job) establishes nothing but your own speciousness.

I make no attempt to "defend the article". I'm really not interested. What catches my eye is a ball of fallacies playing yarn ball to your kitten. Amusing in a slapstick way, but that's about it.

And btw, Liberals don't support Affirmative Action. Don't know where you get that idea.

Shall I answer the question for you, since you're incapable?

You and your ilk try to paint everything you don't understand, every little change in social mores you find alarming, to the bogeyman "liberals" -- even when it's got nothing to do with politics. Y'all learn this ad hominem crap at the feet of your Messiah Lush Rimjob and follow him like he's the freaking pied piper. But it's still the same fallacy it always was.

You're afraid of the dark and need to anthropomorphize your irrational fears into a scapegoat creature, a devil you can throw darts at. It's the tactic of intellectual sloth, as the clerics of millennia past used to control the ignorant masses with Beëlzebubs and Satans. And you pulled it out right at the start. Apparently making up ogres is the only way you can deal with your own failings of understanding. So everything evil becomes "liberal". never mind that you don't even understand what the word means. A dartboard is a dartboard.

"Liberal" is what founded this country, Toots. You don't like it, hop a plane to Pyonyang.

Proving that you are clueless seems akin to gilding the lily....totally excessive, as you prove it yourself time and again.


For example: ""Liberal" is what founded this country,...."

Of course, that is bogus.

The appellation under which you fly is the name that communist John Dewey substituted for the original name, 'socialism.'


Class is back in session, get your pencil, and take notes:



1. Unlike classical liberalism, which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone ‘evolve.’ Thus progressive reformers saw the home as the front line in the war to transform men into compliant social organs.

a. One answer was to get children out of the home as quickly as possible, so that the home could no longer be an island, separate and sovereign from the rest of society.

b. John Dewey helped create kindergartens to help shape children for the new ‘society.’ Dewey, of course, was a favorite of the USSR.

c. This can be seen in Woodrow Wilson’s speech as president of Princeton: “Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life…[but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.” (Michael McGerr, “A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920,” p. 111




2.Classical liberalism....conservatism.
a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked [classical]liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias.

Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.

c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding.

Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


d. “DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms--…”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


3. Progressives interpreted liberty as license, thus destroying the moral rules that make freedom a virtue.
From “The World Turned Upside Down,” by Melanie Phillips. p.284





Now, what have you learned?

1. Classical Liberals, i.e., conservatives, founded this nation based on individualism, private property, and limits on power.

Note how these ideas are the very antithesis of those advanced by what is called "liberalism" today.

2. Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding


3. And, most particularly....we've learned...proven....that you are an ass.



Ready for the quiz?

Excellent post. Your American leftists should never have been allowed to get away with their highjacking of the word 'liberal'.

(Is not the human mind a very strange thing? That you can talk great sense about political theory and on the same day write reams of nonsense in a doomed attempt to refute evolution?)

 

[Pogo]

Uh-- no dear, YOU failed. I challenged you to show how or where any of this has to do with "liberalism" -- you came up with nothing. A reference to somebody's job at a school, as if that's supposed to be an answer. The fact that you declare her a "professional Liberal" (as if "liberal" is a job) establishes nothing but your own speciousness.

I make no attempt to "defend the article". I'm really not interested. What catches my eye is a ball of fallacies playing yarn ball to your kitten. Amusing in a slapstick way, but that's about it.

And btw, Liberals don't support Affirmative Action. Don't know where you get that idea.

Shall I answer the question for you, since you're incapable?

You and your ilk try to paint everything you don't understand, every little change in social mores you find alarming, to the bogeyman "liberals" -- even when it's got nothing to do with politics. Y'all learn this ad hominem crap at the feet of your Messiah Lush Rimjob and follow him like he's the freaking pied piper. But it's still the same fallacy it always was.

You're afraid of the dark and need to anthropomorphize your irrational fears into a scapegoat creature, a devil you can throw darts at. It's the tactic of intellectual sloth, as the clerics of millennia past used to control the ignorant masses with Beëlzebubs and Satans. And you pulled it out right at the start. Apparently making up ogres is the only way you can deal with your own failings of understanding. So everything evil becomes "liberal". never mind that you don't even understand what the word means. A dartboard is a dartboard.

"Liberal" is what founded this country, Toots. You don't like it, hop a plane to Pyonyang.

Proving that you are clueless seems akin to gilding the lily....totally excessive, as you prove it yourself time and again.


For example: ""Liberal" is what founded this country,...."

Of course, that is bogus.

The appellation under which you fly is the name that communist John Dewey substituted for the original name, 'socialism.'


Class is back in session, get your pencil, and take notes:



1. Unlike classical liberalism, which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone ‘evolve.’ Thus progressive reformers saw the home as the front line in the war to transform men into compliant social organs.

a. One answer was to get children out of the home as quickly as possible, so that the home could no longer be an island, separate and sovereign from the rest of society.

b. John Dewey helped create kindergartens to help shape children for the new ‘society.’ Dewey, of course, was a favorite of the USSR.

c. This can be seen in Woodrow Wilson’s speech as president of Princeton: “Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life…[but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.” (Michael McGerr, “A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920,” p. 111




2.Classical liberalism....conservatism.
a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked [classical]liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias.

Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.

c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding.

Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


d. “DEWEY'S influential 1935 tract, Liberalism and Social Action, should be read in light of this conclusion. In this essay, Dewey purportedly recounts the "history of liberalism." "Liberalism," he suggests, is a social theory defined by a commitment to certain "enduring," fundamental principles, such as liberty and individualism. After defining these principles in the progressives' terms--…”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


3. Progressives interpreted liberty as license, thus destroying the moral rules that make freedom a virtue.
From “The World Turned Upside Down,” by Melanie Phillips. p.284





Now, what have you learned?

1. Classical Liberals, i.e., conservatives, founded this nation based on individualism, private property, and limits on power.

Note how these ideas are the very antithesis of those advanced by what is called "liberalism" today.

2. Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding


3. And, most particularly....we've learned...proven....that you are an ass.



Ready for the quiz?

Excellent post. Your American leftists should never have been allowed to get away with their highjacking of the word 'liberal'.

(Is not the human mind a very strange thing? That you can talk great sense about political theory and on the same day write reams of nonsense in a doomed attempt to refute evolution?)

Actually it's the right that "hijacked" it. I know you're in Sweden so here's some background -- this goes back to the McCarthy era, when we had a self-absorbed demagogue out for personal headlines running around screaming "communists" every time a leaf fell off a tree. That lasted less than a decade, but while he was in the limelight he and his desperate cohorts, who had been out of the White House for twenty years, pushed this bogus association between the other party (where most of the actual liberals would reside) and these phantom "communists". Not for any particular commonality, just to demonize them. McCarthy and his bullshit tried to change the meaning of liberal -- just as PoliChic and TK and some others do today with this "classical liberal" malarkey. That's there to explain away the inconvenient paradox.

Though McCarthy was eventually discredited and fittingly drank himself to death, the flame of terminology reconstruction didn't extinguish with him. It was trotted out again and again, memorably in the 1988 presidential campaign where George H.W. Bush used it as a slur against his opponent, without ever explaining what a liberal is -- simply pronouncing it with a sneer as if that was enough, egged on by Machiavellian cynics like Lee Atwater.

The casualty in all this was not Dukakis or Democrats, but the state of honest discourse. It amounts to a collective ad hominem, full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing. As you suggest, they intentionally conflate liberal with leftist as if they're the same thing. They succeeded only in degenerating discourse to an oblique flurry of personal attack and insinuations about vague ideals no one can define.

And so it continues today, with superficially-educated wags blaming everything under the sun on this label of "liberal", without so much as a pot to piss in for a clear definition of their own demonology term. It's a form of the Big Lie, and requires a constant fuel of self-delusion. So that's where this demonization of liberal comes from-- a self-aggrandizing megalomaniac drunk who lied his way into the Senate and disgraced himself. This is the example they so slavishly follow like rats after the pied piper.

That's what this thread is-- crying the blues about how social structures have changed, and blaming it, as always, on "liberals". It would be entertaining if it weren't so predictable.