Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I've Been Telling TQ this very thing for Years!
#1
Dennis Prager, a religious Jew BTY, has TQ, and the rest of his ilk, pegged to a "T". TQ's first response to anything he does not agree with is to call them,..........well, you guessed it. See if you don't agree.

BTY, as a Classic Liberal, who is a "Thinking" Liberal, I have to agree with his concept.


Quote:Harry Reid and the End of the Liberal Mind
By Dennis Prager
The highest-ranking Democrat in America, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, described the Senate bill making English the national language of the American people as "racist." And the New York Times editorial page labeled the bill "xenophobic."

Welcome to the thoughtless world of contemporary liberalism. Beginning in the 1960s, liberalism, once the home of many deep thinkers, began to substitute feeling for thought and descended into superficiality.

One-word put-downs of opponents' ideas and motives were substituted for thoughtful rebuttal. Though liberals regard themselves as intellectual -- their views, after all, are those of nearly all university professors -- liberal thought has almost died. Instead of feeling the need to thoughtfully consider an idea, most liberal minds today work on automatic. One-word reactions to most issues are the liberal norm.

This is easy to demonstrate.

Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:

Racist
Sexist
Homophobic
Islamophobic
Imperialist
Bigoted
Intolerant

And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:

Peace
Fairness
Tolerance
The poor
The disenfranchised
The environment

These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways.

First, they attack the motives of non-liberals and thereby morally dismiss the non-liberal person.

Second, these words make it easy to be a liberal -- essentially all one needs to do is to memorize this brief list and apply the right term to any idea or policy. That is one reason young people are more likely to be liberal -- they have not had the time or inclination to think issues through, but they know they oppose racism, imperialism and bigotry, and that they are for peace, tolerance and the environment.

Third, they make the liberal feel good about himself -- by opposing conservative ideas and policies, he is automatically opposing racism, bigotry, imperialism, etc.

Examples could fill a book.

Harry Reid, as noted above, supplied a classic one. Instead of grappling with the enormously significant question of how to maintain American identity and values with tens of millions of non-Americans coming into America, the Democratic leader and others on the Left simply label attempts to keep English as a unifying language as "racist."

Another classic example of liberal non-thought was the reaction to former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers' mere question about whether the female and male brains were wired differently. Again, instead of grappling with the issue, Harvard and other liberals merely dismissed Summers as "sexist."

A third example is the use of the term "racist" to end debate about race-based affirmative action or even to describe a Capitol police officer who stops a black congresswoman who has no ID badge.

"Phobic" is the current one-word favorite among liberal dismissals of ideological opponents. It combines instant moral dismissal with instant psychological analysis. If you do not support society redefining marriage to include members of the same sex you are "homophobic" -- and further thought is unnecessary. If you articulate a concern about the moral state of Islam today, you are "Islamophobic" -- and again further thought is unnecessary. And if you seek to retain English as America's unifying language, you are not only racist, you are, as the New York Times editorial describes you, "xenophobic" and "Latinophobic," the latest phobia uncovered by the Left.

There is a steep price paid for the liberal one-wording of complex ideas -- the decline of liberal thought. But with more and more Americans graduating college and therefore taught the liberal list of one-word reactions instead of critical thinking, many liberals do not see any pressing need to think through issues. They therefore do not believe they have paid any price at all.

But American society is paying a steep price. Every car that has a bumper sticker declaring "War is not the answer" powerfully testifies to the intellectual decline of the well educated and to the devolution of "liberal thought" into an oxymoron.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#2
Excellent.

Is it okay to use one word here?
Reply
#3
Marbleheader Wrote:Excellent.

Is it okay to use one word here?

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#4
I do agree with the article, but I should point out that Bush does this as well, but with different words.
I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle
Reply
#5
Please provide some examples of what you mean Muneris. Some excerpts from Bush's public speeches or comments, in context, and how the words he uses show a pattern of using one word put-downs of his opponents ideas substituting for thoughtful rebuttal is what I am looking for, since that is what is described of liberals in the article.
DavidR
Reply
#6
John

This is what the Bible teaches as "emotional revolt of the soul". It's become a national phenomenon.

Instead of our emotions responding to our thinking,they reverse and our thinking is done by our emotions. Men begin to act like a frustrated &emotional female.

Not much else is necessary to portray it's affects on a nation.

It's part and parcel of our national decline. My guess is the same basic phenomenon could have been observed as easily in Rome toward her latter days,Israel before one of her many dispersions in massive military defeat,etc.
Reply
#7
Sounds homophobic and vaginaphobic to me.
Reply
#8
Thaiquila Wrote:Sounds homophobic and vaginaphobic to me.

It probably "Feels" that way too. Of course, like Mr Prager states, and I too, this is not the art of 'thinking', and that is your most glaring problem.

If one does not think, then there is no need to objectively consider one's opponents when they rebutt one's emotional outbursts. This is the very thing that Mr. Parger is stating. And he is correct as well.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#9
Sounds liberalphobic and emotionphobic to me.
Reply
#10
Thaiquila Wrote:Sounds liberalphobic and emotionphobic to me.

You remind me of the Hudson and Landry piece about "The Prospectors". When one of them keeps skirting abound the subject of him getting "powerful gamey", the other one tells him that he will do anything to keep from takin' that bath.

TQ, you'll do anything to keep from having to think first and feel later.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#11
A quote from Orwell:
"When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases - bestial atrocities, iron heel, blood-stained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder - one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy... As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems to be able to think of turns of speech which are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse."

As to Bush and the Neocons in general, I do not mean that they label things as "homophobic" and "racist" without thinking about them, I mean that they lash out with phrases like "unpatriotic" and so forth. Although I do not think that this is without thinking: no, I think that this is done with a very clear set of thoughts behind it.
I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle
Reply
#12
Muni,

Could you post a single speech by Bush to this effect?

I can post several to the opposite effect. You have developped a caricature in your mind that facts will not shatter.
Reply
#13
Yes, we could all scour the internet and find examples of where the extremists on all 16 sides of the problems have mis-used the English language to denigrate one another. Was it Madeline Albright who accused the Ambassador of Iraq for not having conjones? That's Spanish for "testicles."

Speaking of Madame Albright (whom I once saw and was surprised at how she might have been even shorter than the Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich), she's just published a book about how the recorded speeches of George W. Bush pander to the religious right more than the two Southern Baptists under whom she worked.

Labels, schmables - it never was true that "names will never hurt me." Words hurt when they're flung around, as in the old racist joke from grade school: "Hey, there's a new book on Chinese wisdom, Spots on the Outhouse Wall by Hu Flung Pu."

Did Mr. Prager admit somewhere in that article that most learned professors tend to be liberals? Hmmm... :roll:

I can no longer count the times I've offered a mild opinion somewhere left of the ultra-conservative side, and been accused of being Communist, Pinko, liberal, a reader of Main Stream Medium, etc. I hardly ever watch TV, but I've been accused of watching all the liberal channels. Would that include Fox? And I've been accused of being liberal because I agree with the Amish about warfare, by people who can't get up the courage or energy to tell the difference between 'pacifist' and 'passivist.' And speaking of passivism, war is NOT the answer. Think about it, which is exactly what a good bumper sticker makes you do.

English language is UNIFYING says Mr. Prager. Well, so is Swahili and Farsi, at least in oppressive cultures where a certain language and dialect are ruthlessly imposed by xenophobia. Can we agree that the French are xenophobic about their language?

Immigrants to the USA have almost always learned American English if they arrived before the age of 40. Today's advocates of a NATIONAL LANGUAGE for the USA could learn its pluses and minuses from the Canadians, including the Quebecois. Advocating English only - a close step away from declaring English to be the national language - amounts to running in close quarters with the xenophobes and the racists.

Now, 'racist' is defined differently in various modern dictionaries, or in actual usage. To those who think narrowly, esp. those narrow-minded whose idea of "race" hasn't changed since 1951, racism only occurs when a person of one of the major races denigrates someone of another race. But in current parlance, it includes the narrow-minded actions that oppose other nationalities, Jews, non-native speakers of English, etc. However, we don't like calling somebody a "nationalist" because that's what the Nazi party of German was.

Enough. Now it's your turn. S2

Oh John L, I thought Prager wrote his article well. :roll:
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply
#14
Quote:I can no longer count the times I've offered a mild opinion somewhere left of the ultra-conservative side, and been accused of being Communist, Pinko, liberal, a reader of Main Stream Medium, etc.
This is exactly what I mean, all sides have labels with which they attack their opponents.

Palladin, I have read such things in newspapers, heard them on TV and so on, but I have not seen them on the internet, so I cannot post them. If you know a website with copies of all Bushes speeches, I will have a look.
I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle
Reply
#15
So I am guessing that you don't plan do back up your claim with evidence then Muneris. I don't know of any one site that archives transcripts of all of his speeches, but a simple keyword search of "george bush speech transcript" in any search engine will return many pages relevant to the search for transcripts of individual speeches. If you know the date or venue of a specific speech that you want to look at you can tailor your keyword search accordingly. Are you going to use the lack of a single location containing transcripts of all of his speeches as an excuse to not back up your claim? If so then you sir are lazy. Get of your keister and do a little digging to back up your claim sir.
DavidR
Reply
#16
Quote:English language is UNIFYING says Mr. Prager. Well, so is Swahili and Farsi, at least in oppressive cultures where a certain language and dialect are ruthlessly imposed by xenophobia. Can we agree that the French are xenophobic about their language?

Talk about one size fits all. Yes, the French are xenophobic about their language. The French don't want their language changed. They wish it to remain unchanged and unchanging. American English on the other hand is constantly changing. We adapt words from the languages of those who come to make a life here and we make up new words to fit now concepts.

As to requiring the English language to be the official language of the Federal Government being racist or xenophobic, I absolutely disagree. First, English is already the de-facto official language of the Federal Government and a law stating this fact doesn't change a thing. Second, having a common language is not racist. A common language is a precursor to sharing ideas and cultures. A common language is also an opportunity for everyone to integrate into society, whether you are talking jobs, or education, or the arts, or any other aspect of society. Encouraging groups of people to exclusively speak the language of their previous home and not to learn the common language of their new home is encouraging them to remain separate culturally, socially, and economically. Encouraging those same groups to learn the common language of their new home is to invite them to participate in our society and both benefit from the larger cultural, social, and economic opportunities as well as contribute their own cultural, social, and economic point of view to the mix. Having a common language does not preclude knowing and using additional languages. In Europe, at least the parts that I have visited (France, Belgium, Germany, and Luxembourg) it is uncommon for someone to not know at least two languages and most people that I met could get by in at least three languages in addition to their native language. Let immigrants keep their own languages and social and cultural ways and pass the same onto their children, but also encourage them to learn the common language of their new home so that they can fully participate in their new homeland.
DavidR
Reply
#17
David, I did google "George Bush Speech Transcripts" but the stuff that came up wasn't the sort of thing I'm talking about, have a look yourself.
I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle
Reply
#18
Muni,

Bush specifically stated the opposite of the specific charge you made when asked. He said it is NOT unpatriotic to disagree with a given war effort and dissent,that's why I challenged you. You will fail to find any public statement to the opposite effect,it would have been huge news here.

What you heard or thought you heard was some person such as myself make such comments.
Reply
#19
Muneris,

Try removing the quotes. Those force a search for exactly that string while a keyword search doesn't include the quotes and is much more inclusive. I have already looked at the first few returns and found transcripts of speeches there.

In fact the first two returns are to the white house website which has a News by date heading in the left margin. I have already looked at a handful of them and when they are about public speeches or comments that he has made there are transcripts of what he said. Have a look for yourself. This would be the kind of information you would need to look at if you want to find evidence to back your claim up. I saw links to transcripts of Bush speeches on news websites in the google results as well.

In fact I will go one step further. Here is the URL of the results page returned by Google for my search.

Google: george bush speech transcript

Now that I have done the heavy lifting all you have to do is get off your lazy keister and start following links to speech transcripts and reading them.
DavidR
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  We've Been Telling the Alamo Story Wrong for Nearly 200 Years. Now It's Time to Corre Canuknucklehead 1 142 06-10-2021, 12:26 PM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)