Liberals are pretentious

X-Dawg

Upon reading Josh Steichmann’s opinion of how liberals are the defenders of freedom, one sentence in his article proved to me that, like many people in this world, he has no idea of what they are talking about.

This is the sentence that caused his entire argument to fall apart:

“And liberals, for the most part, take this either lying down or with pusillanimous equivocation.”

I looked up the definitions of “pusillanimous” and “equivocation” in the dictionary: Pusillanimous: lacking courage; cowardly. Equivocation: the use of expressions susceptible of a double signification, with a purpose to mislead

Steichmann was stating that liberals should take his opinion with a cowardly purpose to mislead. I was surprised he did not throw in the word antidisestablishmentarianism to give his article more of an intellectual bite.

This is the type of arrogant attitude that has soured the public on major liberal personalities in the media from Al Gore to Al Franken. All of them come across as if they are better than the common man, more educated than the rest of us because they use words like “gravitas,” but while still fighting for our rights.

The reason Americans adored President Ronald Reagan is because he never behaved like he was better than us; he was a humble man. When a crazed gunman shoots at you, it humbles you even more.

President George W. Bush’s approval rating has slipped. However, the public’s adoration of him has not slipped because he can connect with the common American: he speaks the language most Americans do.

The public hates elitists, and it hates celebrity elitists even more. Americans are getting tired of people like Barbara Streisand and Tim Robbins telling them how to think and giving opinions on everything from health care to national defense. When was Babs an expert on Middle East terrorism?

Media liberals walk this earth with the notion that they are better than the common person and only they know what is best for us. The public is getting tired of it, the Janet Jackson stunt was the nail in the coffin. She thought it was appropriate to have Justin sexually assault her on stage in the name of entertainment. Then again, her brother Michael thinks giving children wine and sharing his bed with them is also acceptable.

Liberals in the media in their nature are prideful, there is a saying “pride goeth before a fall” The leftist elite in America is comparable to the French Aristocracy that ruled France before the revolution. The Reign of Terror was waged by an angry population that was tired of being oppressed and humiliated by an elite that behaved as if it was better than them.

X-Dawg,
Oct 19th, 2004.

therecklessone

Think this belongs in humanities myself, but anyway...

X-Dawg wrote:

President George W. Bush’s approval rating has slipped. However, the public’s adoration of him has not slipped because he can connect with the common American: he speaks the language most Americans do.

What, so most American's talk bo**ox?

X-Dawg wrote:

The public hates elitists, and it hates celebrity elitists even more. Americans are getting tired of people like Barbara Streisand and Tim Robbins telling them how to think and giving opinions on everything from health care to national defense. When was Babs an expert on Middle East terrorism?

When was Dubya?

X-Dawg wrote:

The public is getting tired of it, the Janet Jackson stunt was the nail in the coffin. She thought it was appropriate to have Justin sexually assault her on stage in the name of entertainment.

WTF? Sexual assualt is defined as:

sexual contact, such as kissing, touching, fondling and intercourse, without consent.

source: http://www.plea.org/freepubs/sass/sasspg1.htm

What is consent?
Consent means to voluntarily agree to engage in sexual activity. When threats or force are used to obtain consent, that consent is not voluntary.

So Janet thought it was an appropriate action, but its still sexual assault in your book. Kinda rules out all sexual behaviour, doesn't it? A novel solution to the earth's exploding population...

Redleslie2

X-Dawg wrote:

This is the sentence that caused his entire argument to fall apart:

“And liberals, for the most part, take this either lying down or with pusillanimous equivocation.”

I looked up the definitions of “pusillanimous” and “equivocation” in the dictionary: Pusillanimous: lacking courage; cowardly. Equivocation: the use of expressions susceptible of a double signification, with a purpose to mislead

I think you may have missed a joke of sorts there.

The public hates elitists, and it hates celebrity elitists even more.

Like Reagan? And Ahnuld? Jessie Ventura? Fred "Who?" Thompson? Clint?

Liberals in the media in their nature are prideful, there is a saying “pride goeth before a fall” The leftist elite in America is comparable to the French Aristocracy that ruled France before the revolution. The Reign of Terror was waged by an angry population that was tired of being oppressed and humiliated by an elite that behaved as if it was better than them.

Maybe if stupid people stopped going to see their movies they wouldn't have such so many huge solid platinum houses and swimming pools full of treasure.

BEAT

I agree, off to humanities it goes.
For further reference x-dawg...the creative writing forum is where you post pieces of your own ceative writing.

This will do fine in either humanites or Politics...mod will re-direct if not in the right place .

Fysh

Well, I agree to an extent about celebrities who spout off about issues, but it's not only celebrity liberals who do it. Hell, I remember Kid Rock speaking out about how necessary it was to "take Saddam out" before Bush kicked off the invasion. Because, you know, white trailer trash "musicians" clearly know the ins and outs of international politics.

However, there's a worrying trend in the US (and probably in other Western countries, although it's not made so glaringly obvious there) to extend the cult of personality to the country leadership - this idea that the President should be "a common man", someone you'd like to have over to dinner. And the reason it's worrying is that being President requires someone intelligent, able to make tough decisions, find solutions to intractable problems, act as a foreign diplomat representing the best of their country. Dubya is not, I fear, the best example of this. There seems to be an emerging s fear of intelligence in sections of American society, whereby people who are preceived to be intelligent and knowledgeable about complex subjects and issues become feared and ridiculed. Perhaps this is a result of the American "You have to be the best" mentality, triggering a scornful response towards those they fear may be intellectually superior to them. Or maybe it's because the american social system (and it's not only theirs, either, although theirs seems to be at a more advanced stage than other countris) is creating a social underclass of sorts that does not aspire to rise through the social hierarchy beyond purely financial terms; an underclass which can be easily convinced that the government is acting in their best interests, by showing "one of them" as President, and then used or manipulated to keep the government, and the social structure, in place.

simu

X-Dawg wrote:

Upon reading Josh Steichmann’s opinion of how liberals are the defenders of freedom, one sentence in his article proved to me that, like many people in this world, he has no idea of what they are talking about.

Do you have a link for this article? Who is Josh Steichmann?

impr0v

X-Dawg wrote:

However, the public’s adoration of him has not slipped because he can connect with the common American: he speaks the language most Americans do.

Matt Cooper had a contributor on from one of the American Colleges about the time of the first presidential debate and he also made this point. The way he put it was 'Kerry speaks english, Bush speaks American.'

sceptre

simu wrote:

Do you have a link for this article? Who is Josh Steichmann?

It appears to have been something published in the, erm, not very well-known Eastern Michigan University Echo on the not very recent April 7 2004.

As for who Josh Steichmann is, if there are two Josh Steichmanns, this one is "some bloke", if there's one Josh Steichmann, he's a music journalist.

To the original post, for some reason he's taking the example of one bloke using two words that that guy may not understand and assumes from that that all liberals are pretentious. I'm afraid that's obviously poor logic, right up there with "all dogs have four legs, my cat has four legs, therefore my cat is a dog" - "this guy's a liberal, he's pretentious (I think), I can think of a few more, therefore all liberals are pretentious and that's bad for some unexplained reason".

Some liberals are pretentious. Some non-liberals are pretentious. The pretentious aren't pretentious because they're liberal or non-liberal in particular, they're pretentious because they're pretentious (in other words A does not necessarily lead to B, nor is B restricted to having been led from A).

mike65

okay, I'll say it cos its expected of someone here

Moi?

Mike.

Redleslie2

sceptre wrote:

Some liberals are pretentious. Some non-liberals are pretentious. The pretentious aren't pretentious because they're liberal or non-liberal in particular, they're pretentious because they're pretentious (in other words A does not necessarily lead to B, nor is B restricted to having been led from A).

*Stares with open mouthed and squint eyed incomprehension at the above for a full five minutes, raises finger slowly to point at Sceptre and hisses...

"Liberal!"

johnKarma

X-Dawg wrote:

“And liberals, for the most part, take this either lying down or with pusillanimous equivocation.”

I looked up the definitions of “pusillanimous” and “equivocation” in the dictionary: Pusillanimous: lacking courage; cowardly. Equivocation: the use of expressions susceptible of a double signification, with a purpose to mislead

Steichmann was stating that liberals should take his opinion with a cowardly purpose to mislead. I was surprised he did not throw in the word antidisestablishmentarianism to give his article more of an intellectual bite.

Seriously? Are you trolling? Can you read?

Upon scanning the article (which you really should have linked to in the first place), it becomes apparent that he is CRITICISING liberals for not standing up to the rhetoric of crazed right-wingers like yourself.

Grow up, get that chip off your shoulder, and stop listening to Bill O'Reilly.

Zombrex

X-Dawg wrote:

This is the sentence that caused his entire argument to fall apart ....

... The public is getting tired of it, the Janet Jackson stunt was the nail in the coffin.

Well I am sure you can relate to arguments falling apart considering you are associating the American left-wing/liberal political movement with a Janet Jackson "stunt"

What "liberals" do that pisses of middle class American is not constantly tell them that they are brilliant and that America kicks ass. Regan didn't win because he told the truth, or because he was a "common man". He won because he used the advertising trick of assoicating himself with the consumeristic nature of modern America. Basically he sold the voting public a life style to assapire too, that identified with their "dreams". Of course it was all bull****. That is the difference. The Regan style right wing attempt to sell pride and lifestyle to the american public, which ignores the reality. When Regan died everyone said he restored "pride" in America after Watergate. WTF does that mean? It was all marketing and PR!

The liberal left (the true left, cause the Democrates have totally sold out and are doing the same thing) don't play that game. They tell the American people that everything is not rosie, that work must be done. And that really pisses of the Fox News watching middle classes who would rather not be reminded of things such as the inner city, foreign relations etc unless they think it is going to directly effect them.

Hairy Homer

X-Dawg wrote:

Media liberals walk this earth with the notion that they are better than the common person and only they know what is best for us. The public is getting tired of it,

Liberals in the media in their nature are prideful, there is a saying “pride goeth before a fall” The leftist elite in America is comparable to the French Aristocracy that ruled France before the revolution. The Reign of Terror was waged by an angry population that was tired of being oppressed and humiliated by an elite that behaved as if it was better than them.

There is only one thing worse than a well-educated supercillious 'prideful' left-wing dominated press and that is a bilious, rabble-rousing, mendacious, warmongering, scaremongering right-wing press.

Which do you think dominates in Ireland at the moment?

And the US?