hotsauceman1 wrote:

Im confused aswell. What is "Left Coast Elitism" and why is it bad? And maybe the generation that gave us this shithole to fix deserves to be dragged?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Im confused aswell. What is "Left Coast Elitism" and why is it bad? And maybe the generation that gave us this shithole to fix deserves to be dragged?

This. Let's just say I'm not too happy over the projections of our generation's working life and standard of living...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
ok, explain the "Elitism" aspect of it

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

*Sigh* You do realize what liberalism actually is don't you?

My point it that modern liberalism (as in not the dictionary definition) is defined by pushing for equality, natural and civil freedoms, and tolerance. Elitism is putting one group over another, and thus the opposite of liberalism. The reason I see for the "elitist liberal" thing is that people use liberal interchangeably with democrat and conservative interchangeably with republican instead of what they actually mean. I am liberal, but I am not a democrat (who are often accused of being elitist by republicans who, at the same time, choose one of the elite for their candidate), and disagree with many of the things they have done, or how they have done them. The problem is when people define parties by a definition that incact means either wanting change (liberal), or wanting thing to stay the way they are, or to revert to old ways (conservative).

I am using elitist in the manner that the liberals would put the needs, wants, and desires of the disadvantaged or the needs, wants, and desires of the middle and upper-class.

Because, WTF have those rich guys ever done for anyone?

Only start businesses, succeed, and hire people to work for them. You know an honest day of work earning some money to spent on your survival and comfort.

I know it's easy to hate them guys in the rich suburbs and their expensive vehicles and their advantaged offspring.

Yet I see time and again liberal lawyers getting into office on the promise to make those bastards pay. Yet, I have yet to run across a liberal cum politician who employed feth all.

They just want to tax and regulate the wealth away from the wealthy and into the hands of the poor.

Then they turn around and curse the corporation for moving jobs outside of the country.

Well gak, it's clear that their efforts toward industry and job creation is not valued here, so yeah, move them jobs out of the country.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

The gist of it is that democrats are elitist because they support the middle and lower classes above the rich (who, for irony's sake, are the elite).

Seaward wrote:That may make you feel better, but that's not really a good explanation.

daedalus wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

The gist of it is that democrats are elitist because they support the middle and lower classes above the rich (who, for irony's sake, are the elite).

There's some who believe Orwell's horror story of language redefinition isn't quite such a story.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not quite sure of you point. I assume you are talking to me, but what are you saying?

 Seaward wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not quite sure of you point. I assume you are talking to me, but what are you saying?

That your 'gist' of liberal elitism isn't at all accurate.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Seaward, then please give another definition. just dont poost "That isnt true"

In the United States, the lifestyle of the liberal elite is often considered noteworthy.[1][2] The term "liberal elite" often carries the implicit connotation that the individuals described by the term are hypocritical. For instance, they may support busing and oppose school choice and vouchers, but send their children to private, parochial or racially homogeneous wealthy public schools. The liberal elite are often characterized as having an affinity for European culture, especially the culture of France and foreign films. Thus the phrase liberal elite suggests that liberals are unpatriotic, because they like other cultures and are disdainful of American life and culture. Columnist Dave Barry drew attention to these stereotypes when he commented, "Do we truly believe that ALL red-state residents are ignorant racist fascist knuckle-dragging NASCAR-obsessed cousin-marrying roadkill-eating tobacco-juice-dribbling gun-fondling religious fanatic rednecks; or that ALL blue-state residents are godless unpatriotic pierced-nose Volvo-driving France-loving left-wing communist latte-sucking tofu-chomping holistic-wacko neurotic vegan weenie perverts"[3]? South Park's creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone use the stereotypes attributed to the liberal elite for comic effect. In the episode "Chef's Chocolate Salty Balls", they portrayed members of Hollywood's movie industry as being hypocritical and self-serving and having an affinity for tofu, steamed celery, couscous and the products of organic markets. In the episode "Smug Alert", they portray San Francisco liberals as haughty and condescending towards people less progressive than themselves and poking fun at the large number of wine and cheese stores in San Francisco. The film Team America: World Police includes jokes about the liberal elite, implying that they live in their own protected niche and are thus unaware of the dangers of internationalism. The film lampooned several Hollywood celebrities, including Susan Sarandon, Liv Tyler etc. for their left-wing political views. Michael Moore, who is famous for having left-wing viewpoints whilst making large amounts of money from his books and films, is also lampooned in the film.
During the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election, Republican candidate John McCain likened Democratic candidate Barack Obama's celebrity appeal to that of pop star Britney Spears and socialite Paris Hilton.[4]
A political ad from the right wing organization Club for Growth attacked the Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean by portraying him as part of the liberal elite: "Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs."[5]
Those Americans who equate intellectual pursuits and careers with elitism often point out American intellectuals, most of whom are upper middle class not upper class,[6] are primarily liberal. Fully 72% of professors identify themselves as liberals. At Ivy League Universities, an even larger majority, 87% of professors identified themselves as liberals.[7] Those with post-graduate degrees are increasingly Democratic.[8][9][10][11]
In Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? the idea of a liberal elite is compared to George Orwell's character Emmanuel Goldstein in the book Nineteen Eighty-Four, the fictional hated enemy of the people. Frank argues that anger directed towards this perceived enemy is what keeps the conservative coalition together.[12]

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The long and short of it is, basically someone who has left leaning tendencies, support left side "pet issues" yet not support those causes with their own uses of those things.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The long and short of it is, basically someone who has left leaning tendencies, support left side "pet issues" yet not support those causes with their own uses of those things.

Or, I would say, someone passionately in favor of policies that they know will not affect them thanks to their wealth and influence.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Took this from Wikipedia

A liberal is someone who favors increased government spending, power, and control, as in ObamaCare, as well as censorship of Christianity. Increasingly, liberals side with the homosexual agenda, including supporting homosexual "marriage". Many liberals favor a welfare state where people receive endless entitlements without working. Liberals are often anti-Christian, or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American Christians. They prefer atheism over the Christian faith, as atheism has no objective morality to hinder their big government plans. The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically unsound views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of conservative principles without having any meaningful values of their own.

Polling data has consistently shown that a increasingly large percentage of Americans identify as conservative, rather than as liberal, currently by 38% to 21%.[1]

A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices:

Spending money on government programs (the significant economic problems in the Eurozone due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)
Government's ability to solve economic problems[2]
The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the main reason for Muslim extremists' hostility towards America is because of bad foreign policy [3]
Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion
Cessation of teacher-led prayer in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events.
Gun control
Anti-Americanism
Affirmative action[4]
Opposition to government regulation or restriction of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a First Amendment right[5]
Government-funded medical care, such as Obamacare
Belief in evolution
Destroying the Christian foundations on which America was built on.
Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled public education
Placement of men and women in the same jobs in the military
Legalized same-sex marriage and homosexual adoption
Tax and spend economics
Economic sector regulations[6]
Spreading of political correctness
Destroying liberty
Ending Western morality
Non-syndicalist labor unions
Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching abstinence from premarital sex[7]
A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it is thought to have been intended.
Government programs to rehabilitate criminals
Abolition of the death penalty
Environmentalism[8]
Globalism
Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.
Opposition to full private property rights.[9]
Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine
Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act
Opposition of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a major part of the War on Terrorism
Opposition to the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq
Regulation of business rather than a laissez-faire capitalist economy
Opposition to the Constitution. Liberals seek to expand federal power at the expense of local government and silence the conservatives who hold them back, violating the 10th and 1st Amendments respectively.
Denial of traditional gender roles
Support of financially irresponsible policies
Advocating policies which are proven to be incorrect
Encouragement of global warming alarmism
Persecution of Christianity with deference to other religions, such as Islam.

Liberals currently use two Clauses of the Constitution to try to expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The General Welfare Clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich at increased rates and redistributing that money. The Commerce Clause, on the other hand, says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the Indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this Clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government expanding its power. The latest example is The Affordable Care Act (ACA), better know as Obamacare. In the ACA, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states.
The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, Democrats and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.
Current dictionaries describe the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"[10] or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."[11] In practical usage, the term "liberal" is more closely synonymous with "radical," "immoral," "anti-freedom," or "bad."

I'm sorry, Ensis, but I do not consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source.

 LordofHats wrote:

I'm sorry, Ensis, but I do not consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source.

I'm an active user of Wikipeida and I myself will personally vouch that any article on Wikipedia relating to American politics is complete crap. Never use them. Ever. Go to the talk page on some of those articles. You'll see what I mean.

It took ArbCom two years to determine that the Tea Party article was a complete cluster feth. A full 23 months after everyone else figured it out.

 Ouze wrote:
Conservapedia is the only trustworthy encyclopedia.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I agree, I also don't use wikipedia for anything more serious than here (which is to say, if I'm actually trying to argue something, or am in an academic setting, wikipedia isn't really a source, except a source for sources to start)

 LordofHats wrote:

If you want to use Wiki you need to know wiki and from personal experience I can say this is often more trouble than its worth.

 MWHistorian wrote:
That sounds like every politician out there, Republican and Democrat.

motyak wrote:Heavy, can you address this point rather than just insulting other users? I'm interested to hear your response.

"If you are truly part of the "leave me the hell alone" group of Americans, you would reject a law that forces people to do something that they might not want to."

I'm curious because it seems to be a common stance for conservatives in the US to hold, that they are for small government but also for this sort of legislation.

d-usa wrote:Interesting influx of new users here lately...

MWHistorian wrote:
It comes from a few separate and not very compatible ideas. One, there's Conservatism that basically says that America was created to be land of the free for all people. We shouldn't be afraid to show our religion to others and the government should stay out of people's private lives. They want low taxes, family values and the opportunity to increase their position in life without government getting in the way or molesting their kids at airport screening stations.

Then you have the Republican party which says they represent those kind of people, but in reality, they don't. The Republican party doesn't want lower taxes or smaller government, they want things pretty much how the Democrats want it, but due to their voters, they have to go about it a different way. Both parties want corporate money to keep going and don't care about their supporters. Its like a new aristocracy that the peasants are fighting over for which noble gets to rule them.

There's also the Religious Right which are a stark minority but shout the loudest and longest so the Republican party feels they have to cater to them in order to win elections, even though the exact opposite happens. They get on the news, say ridiculously stupid stuff that basically goes against the sort of thing America was founded for. I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers didn't want a theocracy ruled by the Bible or they would have mentioned it.

It's statism and authoritarianism, just like the Democrat Party, only going about it in a different way.

That's where a lot of confusion comes from, many separate ideas all intertwined into one schizophrenic political movement.