Newt Gingrich

[Stiofán]

Appears he's edging closer to announcing (as if there was really any doubt with all the signs he's been giving off) as he's just hired a pollster and a fundraiser (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3659.html).

BTW, I don't believe for a minute all the camouflage they are putting out.

[ethics]

While he would get my vote, I don't see him even getting the nod from the Reps.

[Stiofán]

I think he'd win the primaries, but like Hillary he's hated too much by the other side to draw enough support from the Democratic candidate to win the election.

True conservative Republicans (I'm not talking the religious right crowd) are salivating for a better choice than they have now.

[Arc]

Mr. Newt has the qualifications but he also has the baggage and a certain image, deserved or not, that says on a national level he couldn't get elected dog catcher.

Oops, one disclaimer: Anyone of substance from the GOP if they find themselves running against Senator Clinton would have a chance.

[joseftu]

Here's (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/04/newt_blames_liberals_for_vt_sh.php) Newt on Virginia Tech
GINGRICH: Yes, I think the fact is, if you look at the amount of violence we have in games that young people play at 7, 8, 10, 12, 15 years of age, if you look at the dehumanization, if you look at the fact that we refuse to say that we are, in fact, endowed by our creator, that our rights come from God, that if you kill somebody, you're committing an act of evil.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But what does that have to do with liberalism?


GINGRICH: Well, who has created a situation ethics, essentially, zone of not being willing to talk about any of these things. Let me carry another example. I strongly supported Imus being dismissed, but I also think the very thing he was dismissed for, which is the use of language which is stunningly degrading of women -- the fact, for example, that one of the Halloween costumes this last year was being able to be either a prostitute or a pimp at 10, 11, 12 years of age, buying a costume, and we don't have any discussion about what's happened to our culture because while we're restricting political free speech under McCain-Feingold, we say it's impossible to restrict vulgar and vicious and anti-human speech.
Even Stephanopolous (no stranger to BS) was baffled by Gingrich's blather. Add him to the list of Republicans that the Democrats would love to see as the nominee.

[ethics]

What am I missing?

[joseftu]

That's what I want to know! What are we missing here?

Gingrich blamed Columbine on liberalism, and here, too, discussing a serious issue, he blathers on with a lot of irrelevant nonsense--blaming video games, blaming liberals, blaming Halloween costumes, blaming somebody (who?) for not thinking that killing is evil, blaming atheists, blaming McCain-Feingold????

He doesn't have a chance.

[ravital]

No, he doesn't stand a chance (and that's probably a good thing IMO), and he doesn't make his point very well either, but I understand his point completely (and it doesn't surprise me that Stephanopoulos either doesn't get it, or pretends not to get it). Hey, this caveman gets it.

Hint: Gingrich is saying that it takes a village to raise a child. Laugh if you wish, I'm completely serious.

[joseftu]

No, that's not what he's saying--in his own muddled way, he's confirming what he said about Columbine.
"I want to say to the elite of this country, the elite news media, the liberal academic elite, the liberal political elite — I accuse you in Littleton of being afraid to talk about the mess you've made and being afraid to take responsibility for the things you have done, and instead foisting on the rest of us pathetic banalities because you don't have the courage to look at the world you have created."
This is a very small step removed, or maybe not removed at all, from Falwell's infamous blame-casting for 9/11. It's idiotic, it's false, it's hateful, it's destructive. I find it contemptible.

[Stiofán]

Really. I guess if the elite don't understand it, it must be blather. ;)

[joseftu]

Yep--that's it!

(And as a certified member of the liberal academic elite, I'll acknowledge yet again that I'm to blame for Columbine, and Virginia Tech, and 9/11, too! Newt says it, so it must be true. Heck, might as well throw in the Holocaust, Pearl Harbor, and the Titanic...iceberg, Goldberg, what's the difference! ;))

[ravital]

You forgot the Kennedy assassination.

[We need a smiley for martyrdom]

[Stiofán]

Yep--that's it!

(And as a certified member of the liberal academic elite, I'll acknowledge yet again that I'm to blame for Columbine, and Virginia Tech, and 9/11, too! Newt says it, so it must be true. Heck, might as well throw in the Holocaust, Pearl Harbor, and the Titanic...iceberg, Goldberg, what's the difference! ;))


Ahhhh, so his point wasn't lost on you...you just disagree with it. Why didn't you say so to begin with?

[joseftu]

Ahhhh, so his point wasn't lost on you...you just disagree with it. Why didn't you say so to begin with?
I don't see that I said anything different! His point isn't lost...just he is!
You forgot the Kennedy assassination.

[We need a smiley for martyrdom]
Oh, right! And that Tsunami? that was one of ours. And Katrina, too, of course.

Here's the smiley!

[ethics]

One thing Joe, I don't see Newt even using the word Liberals or blaming it on Liberalism. He is specific as to what he thinks the problem is. However, when Snuffalofougus asks: But what does that have to do with liberalism?

Newt should have answered, "and when did you stop beating your wife".

[joseftu]

Ah--you have to read the whole thing, not just what I posted at first. Sorry.

The first thing that Stephanopolous said was to quote what Gingrich said about Columbine (it's in my third post)--where Gingrich certainly does mention liberalism--and to ask Gingrich if he still felt the same way.

Gingrich's answer was what I posted in the first post. Gingrich clearly and distinctly blamed Columbine on liberalism (when it happened). When Stephanopolous asked him if he felt the same way about this tragedy, he answered yes--and blamed (idiotically) violence in video games, dehumanization, and some kind of idea that killing is not evil on liberalism.

You can watch the video here
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/22/newt-gingrich-blames-liberalism-on-va-tech-massacre/#more-16540

[ethics]

IF what you say is true then he is not right and way too simplistic. There ARE facets of Liberalism in which one can say CONTRIBUTED to Liberalism, but that's not the only thing and certainly more things in Liberalism that would be in direct opposition to something like what happened in Columbine.

[Stiofán]

Well what he's saying is quite clear despite Joe's spin, and I actually agree with it, although I don't think there's anything society can do about it.

Liberalism has created a society where there are few if any boundries in the name of "art" or "expression" and these things are changing society drastically. In 1970 we had protest songs, but we didn't have rap music calling women hos and bitches, telling kids to kill the cops and so forth. Sex on TV, farm animals on the internet, violent games, none of this stuff was around previously.

I don't think it can be stopped so him railing against it is kind of pointless, but it is intellectually correct.

[joseftu]

Oh, boy, do we disagree, Stiofan!

We watch the same video (at least I'm assuming you watched it), hear the same words, and you agree with him? You think that LIBERALISM caused all these problems? You don't see anything simplistic in that? You don't think that there's any element of blaming the worst evils on your political opponents just because they're your opponents?

Take a moment--would it be "intellectually correct" for me to blame Virginia Tech on George Bush, because it happened in the seventh year of his presidency, and because his illegal and immoral war has caused a disregard for humanity and human life which is now endemic in our society?

Of course not. I would find such arguments to be morally and intellectually bankrupt, an idiotic simplification and a contemptible pandering and polarization. I think you would find it to be that, too.

You're one of the first and the loudest, if I recall, to show your disdain for the idiocy of blaming Bush for everything, or blaming Republicans for everything. Was the Republican "culture of deceit" responsible for Mark Foley? To say that "liberalism" had anything to do with VT, or Columbine, is just as idiotic, I think.

If we're going to criticize the left (as we should) for this kind of partisan oversimplification and blaming of the right, then it really seems like we have to call the same crap what it is--crap--when it's directed against the left.

[Stiofán]

Oh, boy, do we disagree, Stiofan!

We watch the same video (at least I'm assuming you watched it), hear the same words, and you agree with him? You think that LIBERALISM caused all these problems? You don't see anything simplistic in that? You don't think that there's any element of blaming the worst evils on your political opponents just because they're your opponents?



It's obvious. If you have a permissive society, then boundries will be broken, the envelope will be exceeded, limits will be pushed. Note I also said it was inevitable above.

Conservative = status quo
Liberal = change

The status quo didn't openly allow for the language, images, and behavior we have today (yes, it existed in smaller amounts, always has and always would have) so the change is due to a more liberal society, pushed by Progressives as you like to call them. That's just the way it is.

People are exposed today to things that in prior generations would have been unfathomable! Life is cheap today, it's wasn't always so. It's not the conservative values that have allowed this to happen, the status quo. But again, it was inevitable.



Take a moment--would it be "intellectually correct" for me to blame Virginia Tech on George Bush, because it happened in the seventh year of his presidency, and because his illegal and immoral war has caused a disregard for humanity and human life which is now endemic in our society?



No, you'd just be off base wrong. I'm used to that. :)


You're one of the first and the loudest, if I recall, to show your disdain for the idiocy of blaming Bush for everything, or blaming Republicans for everything. Was the Republican "culture of deceit" responsible for Mark Foley? To say that "liberalism" had anything to do with VT, or Columbine, is just as idiotic, I think.

Stop comparing Bush to liberalism. Bush is not the opposite of liberalism. Bush is a man, liberalism is a philosophy.



If we're going to criticize the left (as we should) for this kind of partisan oversimplification and blaming of the right, then it really seems like we have to call the same crap what it is--crap--when it's directed against the left.

Again, Bush is a man, not a philosophy.

If liberals blamed these things on conservatism then you could make an argument. Not a very good one, but an argument none the less. But Bush is used because he's a convenient figure head who is easy to parody, and because of his certain buffoonishness (if that's even a word) it's very hard to defend against because people are attacking the man as well as the idea.

Newt's point is made even more by the fact that McCain/Feingold, a law which raises the bile of most true conservatives (and which is one of the things that will do McCain in with conservatives in 2008), was passed and restricts freedom of political speech 60 days prior to a general Presidential election, yet liberals refuse to set any limits on things detrimental to our future society. That's fine, but why do it in one case but not in any of the others?


If an under 18 year old child gets a speeding ticket here in California the parent or guardian must be notified but a 15 year old can have an abortion on their own because there is a law against mandated parental consent (the justification for is that if a parent is notified it is assumed will beat or injure or otherwise mentally hurt the child, a law based on assumption)??? Crazy! In Virginia the former head of the local ACLU fought for absolutely no filtering of internet access in the public libraries for minors, and was later arrested for breaking child pornography laws via the internet! Unbelievable!

This is what has taken palce over the last many decades, progressive, progressive, progressive until the world is shaped in a way where no one is responsible for their own actions (remember Cho's rant saying we have done it to him?), everyone is free to do anything just because number one wants to do it, whatever feels good.

The "I'm not responsible generation". Fair to place it on liberalsmore than conservatives? I think so.

[Stiofán]

I should add this example......
http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?t=52444

In the liberal world that's ok, but banning online vids of people copulating with german shepards is not.

[ethics]

Stio, it's not just Liberalism though, do YOU agree? Columbine was a cluster of reasons as to why it happened and Liberalism is not the ONLY nor the MAIN reason.

If we go down the lane of laying the blame on video games let's not give Conservatism, Free Market Economy, and Capitalism a free pass.

[Stiofán]

Ethics, you're not getting what I'm saying.

Even though you're a youngin' you must remember the 70's before video games, before internet, before cable. Archie Bunker was the raciest thing on TV. The movie Midnight Cowboy was rated X for crying out loud!

If you spanked your kid then you were disciplining them, not abusing them as today. The only porn available to kids was the copy of Playboy they found in dad's nightstand, or get this, a copy of National Geographic! Ellen wasn't even kissing Laura Dern in your living room on her TV show.

Previous to 1970 you received a GPA in elementary or secondary school. When I got into eleventh grade my progressive school district gave us the option of doing away with them and getting simply a pass or fail. A child's self esteem was considered important, not how much they had learned. Illegal aliens shouldn't be punished for breaking our nation's laws, it's not their fault!. It goes on and on.

Now if conservatism wants things to stay as they were in our parent's day, then our society would be pretty much the same as it was then. They had capitalism, free market did they not? But society looked at things differently then, maybe you're too young to remember. But society has been changing, many of us have lamented the changes here at GA over the years. Go back and look at Domh's community standards thread from a few years ago.

Liberalism has removed the standards because no one should be judged. And when no one wants to be judged, they are free to act in any way that pleases them with no responsibility to others around them, and no repercussions.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to keep citing examples, if you guys don't get it that's just the way it'll be. But Gingrich knew exactly what he was saying and I agree 100%. And Steffi responded in the usual liberal way, "you can't blame us, we're not to blame, it's not our fault, don't judge us so."

[joseftu]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to keep citing examples, if you guys don't get it that's just the way it'll be.
Oh, we get it, Stio (at least speaking for myself). We just disagree. It's overly simplistic (the changes you're talking about have a much broader range of causes...and are not uniformly negative. And the past you're longing for was much more complex, and much less uniformly positive) and inaccurate. In my opinion!

Bush is not a philosophy, he's a person, but there are just as many examples of (some) liberals blaming conservatism, as there are of them blaming Bush for our current ills--just as many as there are conservatives like Gingrich blaming liberalism for our current ills--and they're just as wrong, just as much as over-simplifying, just as much indulging in partisan attacks without any intellectual rigor or honesty.

If you like Gingrich's thinking on this issue, of course, you're free to vote for him. I hope (and expect) that the majority of Americans are going to reject this nonsense in the next election. Then we'll have (at least) another four years during which anything bad that happens will be the fault of liberalism, and anything good will be the result of conservatism. After the next eight or sixteen years, with increasingly liberal presidents and congresses, we can revisit the issue. ;)

[ethics]

Even though you're a youngin' you must remember the 70's before video games, before internet, before cable. Archie Bunker was the raciest thing on TV. The movie Midnight Cowboy was rated X for crying out loud!

I am a poor example. My violence was right outside my window in the 70's America.

If you spanked your kid then you were disciplining them, not abusing them as today. The only porn available to kids was the copy of Playboy they found in dad's nightstand, or get this, a copy of National Geographic! Ellen wasn't even kissing Laura Dern in your living room on her TV show.1. Spanking is legal here in the US. Abuse is not. Yes, too many don't know where the line is crossed but for the main and average issue, this isn't an issue. I still see parents even on the train (especially Blacks) discipline their kids right there in a full packed car.

2. Porn? Porn causes violence to lead to something like Columbine? Porn is controlled here in the US and porn is MUCH more widely available in Europe (you should travel out of your city more and take a look at the rest of the world to see how far behind we are in much of this). Yet Europe doesn't have a bigger problem than we do. It's relative.

3. Games? Study after study has been issued about this and all of them point only one way (http://www.businessweek.com/print/innovate/content/apr2007/id20070425_615390.htm).
Previous to 1970 you received a GPA in elementary or secondary school. When I got into eleventh grade my progressive school district gave us the option of doing away with them and getting simply a pass or fail. A child's self esteem was considered important, not how much they had learned. PC has been encroaching, yes, but not enough to yield to pathetic notions. A VAST majority of schools still use the same markings and grading systems as they did in the 70's and 60's. I would even go further and say that the schools are more equipped, prepared, and challenging than they were when I went to schools.

Illegal aliens shouldn't be punished for breaking our nation's laws, it's not their fault!. It goes on and on.
Both sides of the ideology is responsible for this. I blame Conservatives even more for the lax in their ideology in order to get cheaper labor for the Capitalistic and Market Free economy.

Now if conservatism wants things to stay as they were in our parent's day, then our society would be pretty much the same as it was then. They had capitalism, free market did they not? But society looked at things differently then, maybe you're too young to remember. If society stayed stagnant I doubt THAT would be good. For Capitalism to move, for Free Market economy to IMPROVE, society CAN NOT stay stable. One of the things that you get out of something like Communist Manifesto is the predictions in evolutions in society. Marx and Engels were dead on there.

But society has been changing, many of us have lamented the changes here at GA over the years. Go back and look at Domh's community standards thread from a few years ago.Yes, it focused on one facet of society while totally ignoring the negatives. The lack of safety nets, the racism, the inequalities, the survival of the fittest environment disregarding that kids mature and develop in different stages.

If Newt was going back and saying, "hey, look how great things used to be and how much Liberalism has fucked it up now!" I am sorry, that's not even simplistic but very dangerous thinking because it IGNORES the bad and only accentuates the good.

[Steve]

Newt Gingrich served his first wife with divorce papers while she was hospitalized for cancer treatments. (http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/99_columns/081799.htm)

In the hospital. With cancer. Gave her divorce papers.

This stunning display of a lack of morals is the only reason I need to dismiss Gingrich completely from consideration for any political office.

If he single-handedly brokered true peace in the Middle East, he would still be unqualified to be President.

[ethics]

In the hospital. With cancer. Gave her divorce papers.

But he loved her. :P

Nah, you are right. I totally forgot how that whole thing took place.

Look, I respect Newt, I really do. I think he is one of the most intelligent people in politics. But I just don't see him winning even a nod from Reps.

[Steve]

Well, sheeite! Here I thought you were going to disagree with me and defend him and then I'd have to flame your ass into UiF :lol:

I try real hard not to be a single-issue voter but that one incident just demonstrates a complete lack of humanity, to me.

[ethics]

Well, sheeite! Here I thought you were going to disagree with me and defend him and then I'd have to flame your ass into UiF\

Well, hell man, why didn't you say so!?!?! ;)

[Stiofán]

I will say my comparisons are with 1970s and earlier America and America of today, not comparing the porn availabilty here with that of Europe. But you knew that and still chose to deflect with a worthless comparison. Also, thanks for the condesending I should get out of my city more often comment. You're really quite predictable. Go ahead and defend that things today are the same as they always have been. Some of us lived it and know different though. I'm done pointing out the obvious.

[ethics]

Nope, wasn't meant anything condensing. I meant that outside of the US there really is a different picture. My apologies if I came off offensive.

And the porn comparison was one here and in Europe, including now and Europe not just 70's and their crime stats.

If things are obvious for you it doesn't mean people read minds. It is certainly NOT obvious for me.

[ravital]

If we're going to criticize the left (as we should) for this kind of partisan oversimplification and blaming of the right, then it really seems like we have to call the same crap what it is--crap--when it's directed against the left.

For the record, with apologies to those whose esteem of Gingrich is higher than mine, I never thought he was all that. He has considerable political acumen, but has always been IMO a poor tactician, and that much was evident almost every other week when he was in Washington. People used to say that the shortest distance in DC was between his foot and the business end of his shotgun, and that was largely true.

Having dispensed with that, take an honest, unbiased, attentive look at what he's saying, as I know you can, even if he IS saying it like a broken Rubik's Cube. Forget the politics for a moment, crap is crap no matter where it comes from or slung at. Pay attention to the substance:

When you were a child, when I was a child, if a neighbor around us saw us up to some mischief, they'd report to our parents, who in turn would report the same to them about their children. It was not "Big Brother" or "Police State," it was adults doing favors for each other in the interest of their children. You didn't turn around and walk away from a "talking-to" by an adult, that was rude, and you were punished even further for that. Stio nailed it when he asked you to refer to Domh's post of some years back, on community values. And as I recall, most of us agreed there was good and bad there too. Well, liberalism and permissiveness changed all that, intentionally or not, by design or not, both for better and for worse. The next school shooter could be today, a nine-year-old whose emotional issues could lead to the kind of aberrant state of mind that leads school shooters to such actions, but who today doesn't have a single problem that couldn't be solved by a grandfather, or a friendly adult in the neighborhood. Except that today, the grandfather is 900 miles away and the neighbors couldn't care less, and both parents work, and the kid has too much time on his hands during which he can fall into all sorts of company, do all kinds of things no adult will ever hear of until it's too late, and his issues continue to fester and grow into disorders. Correct me if I'm mistaken, isn't that exactly what the Immaculate Saint Hillary of New York who never did no wrong, was saying in her little book?

Is liberalism responsible for all that? Of course not, that's stupid. But you cannot deny that liberalism has affected everything about our lives and society, and globally - it has had an effect on economics, law, culture, education, human relations, politics and policy, foreign and domestic, you name it. It is also undeniable that many of the ill-effects had at the time been foreseen, warned against, and too often dismissed by a mixture of over-confidence, the desire to implement change regardless, and deny it as you may, condescension. A third-grade Reader 10-20 years ago, contained stories in which all female characters were judges, airline pilots, engineers, doctors, architects, CEOs, anything and everything except "just" mothers and wives. What conclusions do you expect a third-grader to draw when his mother is nowhere to be found, in this version of the world as represented to him by his teachers? I'll give you a hint: to paraphrase the much desipsed Ann Coulter, you could be sent into rehab for using the word "housewife" these days (or "secretary" or "stewardess" for that matter).

Will this, and only this, lead a child to grow into a sociopath/psychopath who opens fire in a school? Of course not. Now add to that the low expectations we've come to have of children, the feel good "you're special, you're wonderful" mantras we pack into their trusting minds that don't know any better. Don't sweat anything, there's no need for it. You're special and wonderful without having to achieve anything. Enjoy the TV/Stereo/iPod/computer in your room, none of which you ever had to earn with a good report card or good deed.

All of these, and more, are results of liberalism - not exclusively, but in great part, directly or indirectly. Does that mean I want to put women back in the kitchen, gays back in their closets, and minorities back in their separate lunch counters? No, I'm only asking that a problem be recognized, acknowledged, and dealt with, or at least discussed, without anyone recoiling into the sarcastic "we're responsible for earthquakes and hurricanes too" that has no purpose, other than to slam the door shut on productive discussion.

There is another thread on this election '08 forum, about bloatloads of money being proposed for education, which some predict will be "the issue" of the next general election. I don't think you need me to tell you, that everybody, everybody in politics, who have, or will, grandstand on this, has zero interest in solving the problem, and 200% interest in having the appearance of genuine concern, the appearance of effective action, nothing more. Does that mean that you, as an educator, as a parent, have nothing useful to contribute to such a discussion?

Crap is crap. We see it, we show it, we denounce it, but we miss a lot if we don't seize the opportunity to discuss the very real factors of whatever "issue" (how do I hate that word, let me count the ways!) that is being seized on and exploited by the crap-generators, whatever their party.

And don't think for a moment that Stephanopoulos is fooling anyone with an IQ above room-temperature, that he doesn't understand what Gingrich means.

[While we're at it, you will note that I don't take cheap shots at his name, yet I've more than once heard him, and so many other "progressives" of such scintillating wits, amuse the plebes with "the Gingrich who stole Christmas." What goes around, I suppose.]

[joseftu]

Now, see, Caveman...what you just said is not crap. I may not agree with all of it, but I can respect it--it's not oversimplification, it's not partisan or divisive or empty blame-slinging. Thank you!

What Gingrich said is crap.

If you want the Republican nomination, I think you deserve it!

[ethics]

When you were a child, when I was a child, if a neighbor around us saw us up to some mischief, they'd report to our parents, who in turn would report the same to them about their children. It was not "Big Brother" or "Police State," it was adults doing favors for each other in the interest of their children. You didn't turn around and walk away from a "talking-to" by an adult, that was rude, and you were punished even further for that. Stio nailed it when he asked you to refer to Domh's post of some years back, on community values. And as I recall, most of us agreed there was good and bad there too. Well, liberalism and permissiveness changed all that, intentionally or not, by design or not, both for better and for worse.


Now this IS interesting. Liberalism changed that, that's what Stio is saying, Rav, perhaps not you but...?

See, Rav, when I was growing up in COMMUNIST Soviet Union, we enjoyed the same 'it takes a village' mentality. You had your neighbors looking out for your kids, the little babushka's were feared because they WOULD tell your parents about the no good you were up to. Now, please, keep in mind this is Soviet Union. Not Capitalist America you are all remembering all too fondly for the wrong (and right) reasons.

What happened years later was that the economy sucked. Both here in the US & Soviet Russia. Babushka's all died away and the ones that were supposed to take their spots couldn't, they were too busy trying to get by because the Socialist medical and pension system went poof.

Here? Women started working more in order to keep up with the Joneses. Women empowered themselves with work instead of relying on the one source of their husband. They went to schools, they earned degrees, they climbed corporate ladders. Little Johny didn't have anyone look after him because society has changed, mothers and grannies were all too busy providing a living for their kids, for THEIR mothers, and so on. This is hardly a fault of Liberalism but more on Capitalism. The nuclear family is not a construct of Liberals.

Is liberalism responsible for all that? Of course not, that's stupid. But you cannot deny that liberalism has affected everything about our lives and society, and globally - it has had an effect on economics, law, culture, education, human relations, politics and policy, foreign and domestic, you name it. So has Capitalism, Rav. So (as is now) Globalization. I mean, if we honestly look at the way our society has changed and how it affected our culture we can probably pin more on Capitalism than Liberalism. I won't deny that Liberalism did play a role but to say that it was a major role? To say that the entire blame should lay at its feet? To blame Columbine massacre on Liberals?

That dog won't hunt.

[ravital]

Here? Women started working more in order to keep up with the Joneses. Women empowered themselves with work instead of relying on the one source of their husband. They went to schools, they earned degrees, they climbed corporate ladders. Little Johny didn't have anyone look after him because society has changed, mothers and grannies were all too busy providing a living for their kids, for THEIR mothers, and so on. This is hardly a fault of Liberalism but more on Capitalism. The nuclear family is not a construct of Liberals.


A construct, no. But liberalism did encourage women to even consider the possibility of working outside the home, whatever the reason for the economic squeeze. And everything since then, everything you list - the education, degrees, climbing the ladder - all that, was assisted by liberal-minded and liberal-driven policies. You're leaving out all the pay-discrepancies, sexual harrassment etc., - in a word, all the reasons for which managers had to sign up all their employees for "sensitivity training." The American workplace today is not what it was when I first entered it in 1980.


So has Capitalism, Rav. So (as is now) Globalization. I mean, if we honestly look at the way our society has changed and how it affected our culture we can probably pin more on Capitalism than Liberalism. I won't deny that Liberalism did play a role but to say that it was a major role? To say that the entire blame should lay at its feet? To blame Columbine massacre on Liberals?

That dog won't hunt.

The entire blame? Of course not. I thought I made that point, and sorry if it wasn't clear enough, I hope this is.

But I do see a link between one and the other, and it doesn't mean to me what you and Joseftu seem to conclude from what Gingrich is saying (again, sorry if I misunderstand). I'm not defending him in any way. He's asking "liberals" - whoever he thinks they might be today - to take responsibility. Responsibility is not the right word, liberalism is not responsible for the VT shootings or anything of the sort.

But since you brought up Capitalism - that is an economic/political system, not a set of cultural, moral, or societal values. Capitalism sells, that's it's ultimate function. If the most elevating classical music and poetry sell, capitalism will sell that. If crap sells, capitalism will be happy to sell it. If "songs" insulting mothers and sisters, and video games where the players kick prostitutes to death sell - capitalism will just as happily sell that. Now, who or what creates the demand?

NOT liberalism, that's obvious. But liberalism did remove many of the societal and personal ethic norms that only a generation ago would have driven you away from such garbage. It does not mean liberals are to blame - hell, it doesn't even mean that playing violent games leads to executing a massacre either. But cultural values drive the market much more than the market drives itself, in a free society. And in that free society, people who adopt new values, new lifestyles etc., and thereby drive the market and drive the culture, would do well to bother to consider the effects of what they're doing, a little more often than they do now.

I don't want to roll back liberalism, or put on it the blame for massacres. I want liberals (everybody, really) to examine liberalism carefully, and give themselves a well-deserved pat on the back (or at least their parents who really had to do so much of it) for the positive changes brought about, and take a hard look at what they did wrong, even if they didn't mean it.

[Stiofán]

My apologies if I came off offensive.


Don't apologize you weak nilly. I can take it. I so thought you'd relish blasting my ass again. I'm sort of sad now. :cry: It's all in good fun anyway.

Regardless, Rav has indeed explained Newt's reasoning, according to Joe much better than I, even though Rav apparently doesn't much like him as a politician. Sorry he had to go to the trouble in this case and soil himself. ;)

Of course, during his explanation he had to bend over back wards at every point to include disclaimers ad nauseum, which I probably should have done, but hey I'm lazy. But if you don't include them for some stupid reason someone will say (although no one has done so yet in this thread, I'm kind of disappointed ;)) gee, we used to have slavery too......... :lol:

Now of course liberals are not "personally" responsible for Columbine or VTech, that's too simplistic to even rate a response. But the liberal values over the years have changed our society in so many ways which allow these things to happen where as 50 years ago they wouldn't have, like today. That's all. That's the meat of the statement.

I remember the guy at the Texas tower shooting. They talked about that one for decades. Now we're getting them every two-three years. Guns were easier to get back then too. So what has changed? Well back then we had the Donna Reed show and today we get a show on prison life (Oz) where the inmates anally assault each other on national cable TV. (Insert disclaimer here- no we don't want to revert to the Donna Reed show)

I mentioned a couple times that this change was inevitable. If society gives individuals one choice on how to act, or be ostracized, the vast majority will take that one choice. In the 60s parents started to raise they kids a bit differently. It accelerated in the 70s-80s and so on. When society gives two choices people will usually take the less restrictive or the easy one. Since we no longer judge people, they are free to do whatever they want. (time for a disclaimer - no, gays shouldn't be put back into the closet) but they no longer seemingly care about the people around them. They only care about themselves. The no responsibility to others thing.

Now Leon has made an argument that it is the woman going to work (caused by capitalism) which has caused little Cho to mass murder. We've always had Capitalism. That's not new. What's new is the value system we have in this country. That is what is new. And that value system has been fostered by the most liberal in our society. Time to step up Professor Joe! Yes you , you big galoot. Take a bow. It's all your fault. You want the complete and utter breakdown of society. Scheming Anarchist!

[joseftu]

Now of course liberals are not "personally" responsible for Columbine or VTech, that's too simplistic to even rate a response. But the liberal values over the years have changed our society in so many ways which allow these things to happen where as 50 years ago they wouldn't have, like today. That's all. That's the meat of the statement.
That's the meat of your statement, all right (not Gingrich's), and it's rotten bean curd at best. Not any meat that I would ever eat! ;)

It's not liberal values that have allowed these things to happen--even that is much too simplistic. But that's not what Gingrich was saying--he was very explicitly casting personal responsibility (read his statement!). Even if you want to argue that that's not what he meant, it's still just ridiculous. society has changed--in lots of ways--over the years. To say that all the good changes are the result of capitalism or conservatism and all the bad changes are the result of liberalism is not supportable.

Now Leon has made an argument that it is the woman going to work (caused by capitalism) which has caused little Cho to mass murder.
I don't think Leon was arguing that. If he was, I would say he's wrong--that would be the same kind of blaming, the same kind of simplification, and just as wrong.
Time to step up Professor Joe! Yes you , you big galoot. Take a bow. It's all your fault. You want the complete and utter breakdown of society. Scheming Anarchist!
Why thank you!
:)

[ethics]

I don't disagree much with Rav's latest post, and most of yours, Stio. Just one nitpick...


Now Leon has made an argument that it is the woman going to work (caused by capitalism) which has caused little Cho to mass murder. We've always had Capitalism. That's not new. What's new is the value system we have in this country.Capitalism makes societies evolve, it's one of its double edged swords, bro. Because Capitalism evolves due to people always thinking of how to make money, the society, in turn has to do so as well.
The woman going to work is due to evolving Capitalism not because Liberalism was put in to the picture. ALTHOUGH, Liberalism IS responsible for empowering the women to do just that.

What makes America wonderful and what most people don't focus enough on is that this is unique LIBERAL Democracy with FREE Capitalistic Economic Model. There's no other in the entire world, guys, and BOTH work towards the same directions which is why the US has become such a powerhouse even though it's a relatively young country.

[Stiofán]

I don't want to get into a debate why married woman of 2007 have to go to work and married women of 1955 overwhelmingly did not have to work, but think about families today making ends meet, tax policy, big government and so forth and you'll get the picture. I'll just remind you of what our favorite conservative President once said, big government doesn't solve problems, big government is the problem.

[drntdrtydg]

No, he doesn't stand a chance (and that's probably a good thing IMO), and he doesn't make his point very well either, but I understand his point completely (and it doesn't surprise me that Stephanopoulos either doesn't get it, or pretends not to get it). Hey, this caveman gets it.

Hint: Gingrich is saying that it takes a village to raise a child. Laugh if you wish, I'm completely serious.

Right. What G is saying is that the general depravity of our popular culture is, well, depraved, yet we have our own sacred cows; racial remarks. Sexist remarks.In a culture where armies of young women now perform in porn, prostitution, adult clubs, and recreational sex as casual as changing their socks (a situation which would have mortified their great grandmothers to all call to arms) even a casual joke about women (not this case) is often met with shock. WTF? In a culture where RAPers endlessly rant about hate violence directed against women and the authorities and get a mansion and a yacht, this guy is fed to the lions for a goofy jr high school remark.

We are living in a depraved society; most of us are just too old to see what the bulk of younger up-and-coming really are (royally messed up), or are sequestered by class from the mainstream of the real garbage and goings on. Remember the violent films and sexy stuff from the 70's? Most of it seems pretty tame today. What G is so poorly saying is that the frame of reference of the current culture is full of a whole level and range of BAD accepted as OK and that bodes very bad for the future.

[drntdrtydg]

I don't disagree much with Rav's latest post, and most of yours, Stio. Just one nitpick...


Capitalism makes societies evolve, it's one of its double edged swords, bro. Because Capitalism evolves due to people always thinking of how to make money, the society, in turn has to do so as well.
The woman going to work is due to evolving Capitalism not because Liberalism was put in to the picture. ALTHOUGH, Liberalism IS responsible for empowering the women to do just that.

What makes America wonderful and what most people don't focus enough on is that this is unique LIBERAL Democracy with FREE Capitalistic Economic Model. There's no other in the entire world, guys, and BOTH work towards the same directions which is why the US has become such a powerhouse even though it's a relatively young country.

There were other important elements in American Society that made it a "powerhouse".

Fading American cultural underpinings:

All men are created equal
Do well to do good
promote the common good
Stand by your manThe new American view:


My stuff makes me better than you
Do well and your better than others and get more sex
cover your ass and to hell with everyone else
What have you done for me lately?Don't laugh, IMO the Americans of days of yore were more egelatarian, more socially responsibile, and generally better to one another out of "the common good" than all our silly socialist social programs have provided. They wrote "Poor Richard" and "Superman", we have "Pretty Woman" and "Saw".