The Political Spectrum – How The Word “Liberal” Has Been Redefined
Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1932, redefined the word liberalism. Prior to 1932, liberalism meant “a belief in individual liberty.” He gave the word a new meaning: “a belief in paternalistic government and trading individual liberty for state-sponsored security” by redefining what he called “the forgotten man.”
In 1932, FDR talked about helping someone he called “the forgotten man.” This phrase came from a book that had been written decades earlier by William Graham Sumner. However, Roosevelt redefined Sumner’s definition of “the forgotten man.” Sumner defines “the forgotten man” in this way: Jim and Frank want to help Sally, so they team up and pass a law that coerces John to co-fund their favorite project to help Sally. In this scenario, Sumner defines the forgotten man as John, who is coerced to co-fund someone else’s project. He is the man who works, prays, and pays his own bills and is never considered by the likes of Jim and Frank. FDR defined Sally as “the forgotten man,” redefining the original concept. In FDR’s scenario, Jim and Frank were Roosevelt himself, and other like-minded people. The vast majority of American citizens became those who were coerced into co-funding Roosevelt’s pet projects.
One problem with American politics today comes from a redefinition of the political spectrum. Take, for example, the word “liberal.” Liberal, in the classical sense, means a “hands off”, or laissez-faire, policy. The United States is an example of a “liberal democracy.” America was founded on the idea that government was to play a minimal role in the affairs of society and the economy, that the job of the government was not to provide direction for society or the economy, but simply to maintain a “free environment” were the public could conduct themselves as they so chose, as long as they didn’t “infringe” on the “rights” of others. This is the classical concept of “liberalism,” the idea of a laissez-faire approach to both economic and social policy. But …
Liberal Tactics
One of the tactics most used by liberals, who do not have an argument to support their failed policies, is to redefine the meanings of words. Liberals (or, as they now like to be called, progressives) have introduced an era of political correctness so as to offend no one, a rewriting of language and history to ensure that words and phrases that offend certain special interests are redefined or excluded from the vocabulary of those progressives and liberals. You will notice this redefining of the language whenever you read liberal publications or watch liberal broadcasts of the evening news.
Prolific readers may recognize the term “Newspeak,” from he George Orwell novel 1984 about an oppressive socialist world. Socialists, Marxists, and liberals want to, need to redefine words. They may be morally bankrupt, but they are smart enough to realize that most people will not accept their distorted worldview. So they must redefine their bad ideas into good ones, and redefine good and practical terms into bad ones.
The pattern has been for liberals to redefine all political debate to the point that anything which does not conform to their agenda is instantly characterized as “rancor,” “extremism,” or “hate.” While liberals have engaged in such tactics for many years, the degree to which it is currently done has grown in recent years. The Tea Party’s devotion to fiscal sanity is “draconian” or “mean spirited.” Concern for the moral preservation and restoration of the nation and its foundational institutions including traditionally defined marriage, is “homophobic” or “hateful.” Protection of the unborn is “sexist” or “anti-woman.” Recognition of the cultural and spiritual roots of the nation, and their critical importance to its future are “religious intolerance” or “xenophobia.” Yet Congresswoman Maxine Waters is called “mainstream” by the MSM.
Redefinition of Words
With the redefinition of words in mind, let’s examine some words that liberals (progressives) have redefined. I am sure that you can add a few more.
- discrimination: a word that has lost meaning in the progressive era from over use by the MSM and this administration. To liberals discrimination means not giving equal stuff to members of minorities, who should have whatever they want, and everyone else must pay for those wants.
- diversity: a blend of several unique items coexisting, such as a diversified stock portfolio. Liberals, however, define this word to describe racial, religious, cultural, and other “diversity” promoted within a single society that they define.
- equality: an idea which states that each member of a given group has equal value or equal authority. To liberals it means forced equal outcomes regardless of skill, experience, or effort, as in racial quotas.
- progressive: A “progressive” focuses on using government power to make institutions play by a set of rules. But liberals want to define “the rules.” Are you beginning to see how subtle liberals can be? Does the EPA come to mind?
- prejudice: “Prejudice” means literally to pre-judge. But liberals cannot stop there – they add racial or class or sex or … so as to fit their agenda and change the meaning of the word.
- racist: The MSM and current administration have used this word so much that the word has lost relevance in any honest debate. To liberals it means any person or organization that disagrees with the policies of the current administration.
- rainbow: a “rainbow” is literally a circular color spectrum appearing in the sky due to the result of refraction and multiple reflections of sunlight in droplets of water. Liberals have redefined the word as a symbol of homosexuality. It has also been redefined and used by left-wing political pressure groups to refer to their agenda of multiculturalism. The word has also been mis-used by liberals as a symbol of “diversity.”
- tyranny: tyranny literally means oppressive power exerted by government. This word is not present in the progressive liberal vocabulary.
- union dues: to liberals, union dues means voluntary contributions from individuals who are happy to belong to a union and agree with all actions the union takes. In actuality, it is money coerced from union members as a condition of employment.
This Is What It Has Come To
Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said that fear of being labeled “prejudiced” may have prevented whistleblowers from notifying authorities about the violent evolution of Army Maj. Nidal Hasan before he launched his deadly terrorist attack on Fort Hood in 2009, in which 13 people were killed and 30 wounded. “At one point, for instance, he [Hasan] stated in front of a group of them that he thought a Muslim-American soldier would be justified in killing his comrades in defense of Islam,” said Senator Lieberman. “And I think some of the rest of it came from a fear of making waves, and particularly making waves that would cause the people who were making them and reporting Hasan [might] put them in jeopardy of being labeled as prejudiced,” continued Lieberman. [emphasis mine]
But that’s just my opinion.
Very good post. You did miss a few. I think there could be a whole dictionary of liberalspeak.
And securing air travel using successful non-racial, non-ethnic behavioral profiling techniques such as the those used by Israel is out of the question. It would be racist (new definition). So as a condition of travel we are subjected to naked x-ray scanners or else probing by TSA hand-rape technicians. Small children, nuns, eighty-year-old women with leukemia – they make a point of going after them to show they are not profiling, i.e. to show that they are not serious about efficient use of resources. Just the opposite in fact. The more inefficiency and featherbedding, the bigger the TSA bureaucratic empire
Maybe we should start using text inserts to indicate whether we are using the real definintion of words of the progressive, deceptive, social engineering definition. Maybe {prog. def.} or similar.
Last year my family was flying out of San Diego. A TSA middle manager suddenly stomped through the security area roaring “FREEZE!” at the absolute top of his lungs. Nobody knew what the hell he was talking about. “FREEZE! I SAID FREEZE!” he roared into a very elderly woman’s face from two feet away. “OK, UNFREEZE!” Back to normal you insects, it was just a drill. If she’d had a heart attack or something, presumably they would have been exempt from lawsuit. Yeah. We get it. It was not about security. It was about playing Simon Says and feeding their egos and turning us into sheep for the sake of turning us into sheep.
And you know those naked x-ray scanners? The ineffective ones that don’t show explosives? Marketed by a politically connected career bureaucrat who used to head the Department of Homeland Security. There is a vast floating mass of these bastards, and R vs. D does not matter.
http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2010/11/full-body-scan-of-american-corruption.html
I know a guy who is finishing his residency to become an ER doctor.
He went to UCLA med school.
He said an interesting thing to me about the UCLA school year.
It has three equal-length semesters.
I said, wouldn’t they be called trimesters?
He said, yes, they SHOULD be.
BUT the PC administration of UCLA said that ”breeders” owned the term ”trimesters,” so their school would call each of the three equal parts of their school year a ”semester.”
LOL!
One of these days all their slip-sliding the language away is going to catch up to them.
Sir, you write: “rainbow: a “rainbow” is literally a circular color spectrum appearing in the sky due to the result of refraction and multiple reflections of sunlight in droplets of water. Liberals have redefined the word as a symbol of homosexuality. It has also been redefined and used by left-wing political pressure groups to refer to their agenda of multiculturalism. The word has also been mis-used by liberals as a symbol of “diversity.” –>
Neither “liberals” or “homosexuals” have redefined what a rainbow is. It is still a color spectrum in the sky. Gay folks have merely adopted the rainbow as a “don’t tread on us” flag and symbol because we like Judy Garland and the “Somewhere over the rainbow” song — which leads to a promised land, and because the Stonewall Riots happened two days after she died; we were sad and pissed, and the cops came to raid the place again — for “liberty” and “values” or something, and the “right to freedom of assembly” and oh, yah, the corruption payoff that gay bars paid to precincts all across the nation.
Still, I doubt there would be any color or symbol we gays would adopt that wouldn’t offend someone; had we adopted the Gadsden flag, snake and motto, we’d be accused of Lord knows what.
And gay people, by seeking a legal regime in family law for matters of family, are not “redefining” marriage, we are adding a small subset of reality — there are gay couples. Currently, in every state, gay couples use commercial law to effect matters of joint checking accounts, home ownership, inheritance, insurance and whatnot — and if we don’t fit with the word “marriage” in the Family Law, which is usually Title 2, then give us any word 100,000 words either side of “marriage” in the dictionary and Title 2.5, so we might get on with our lives – – which have nothing to do with hetero anything.
And the constant drumbeat that “gayness” is some liberal political position is ridiculous, gayness exists at the exact same percentage all over the world in every society on earth forever — and what a gay Argentinian or a gay Indonesian thinks about American politics is rather unknown. And, too, we are rather fed up at being called society wreckers when we cut hair, put up drapes and put on Broadway shows, unless we’re playing the organ and putting up the flowers and serving food at your wedding chapels and wedding receptions. But there is no “gay” position on taxes, the deficit, or road paving; and we pay quite a bit of taxes too.
And every time liberals of whatever name get together there are riots and violence; and every time gay folks get together there are parades and festivals. Why, what a difference that is, eh?
Wild eyed fear tactics about gay folks is equally as unbecoming from conservatives, as crazed stupidity is coming from the left. If the unemployment was 2% and everybody was rich, and you had every problem in the nation solved — including the hetero divorce, abortion and unwed mother problems — you would still have gay people. Gayness is like autism, no one wants it, but there you have it. So say something nice about us, forget about us, stop telling us we should find the girl of your dreams, and get on to the real troubles at hand. Thanks.
I think the gay rainbow thing was a poor example.
Jesse Jackson calling his racial-divisiveness-based extortion operation the “Rainbow Coalition” is a better example of Orwellian misdirection.
On the other hand – one of these is truth, and one of these is fiction; and the fiction is less extreme than the truth:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/gaypride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays,351/
http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/
As far as the idea of gay marriage being a liberal political position or marxist social engineering in disguise – like many people, I wonder why marriage was until just a few years ago sneered at by gays as a corny relic typical of breeders and their limited and constrained world view, but now suddenly it’s the most important thing in the world. When one asks that question of a gay person, they tend to get real quiet real fast.
I am not coming from a religious background here. It’s just like most people, I don’t like the idea of being tricked, of being sold something under false pretenses. It’s human nature.
I don’t think that all gays conciously see gay marriage as a Trojan Horse for an underlying objective of making all marriage and therefore all family less important — they want to believe in the feel-good narrative being pushed by the Left. If you want to invent a brand new way to go to divorce court and pay alimony and child support, I won’t stand in your way. I have other things to worry about.
But you have to at least grant that somebody like me can see significant contradictions and unexplained reverses in direction, that there are signs of misdirection here.
Yeah, on a similar vein…I remember when the Bush Administration reclassified “Burger flipping jobs” as jobs in “Manufacturing”.
You can’t make this ship up.
Excellent post. The cartoon is also spot on – especially the “projection” and “denial” points, which I personally call the two official Defense Mechanisms of the Democrat Party.
Incidentally there is a book that came out a number of years ago called “Liberwocky: What Liberals Say and What They Really Mean.” (
This post is a great addendum to that.
http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
The Jewish Republican’s Web Sanctuary
@Ivan:
Because you’ve proven over and over and over again that nothing you say can be trusted without verification, kindly provide source material to support your point.
One more definition, that being political correctness:
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical
minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a
piece of shit by the clean end.”
The term , “Reparations For Slavery ” has been removed from use and has been replaced by the term, ” Social Justice “
Another thoughtful post, Mr. Beatty. It’s funny you pen this since I’ve been thinking of this more and more lately. Most especially in light of the arrival of some of our newer commenters who emphatically support the only admitted socialist in Congress, Bernie Sanders, and then deny any Marxist tendencies simply because they do not utter the phrase, “dialectic materialism”. Sorta hits new heights of irony when they support the same principles as the dialectical Marxist, Bertell Ollman.
Then, of course, you can add to the plethora of word re’defining, the revisionist Founding Father history currently being circulated by progressives – i.e. they use Founders/Framers principles that abhor too much centralized control as a way to insist the Founders and Framers were for wealth redistribution, and that control was to be accomplished by taxation. They, of course, insist it’s just a wee bit of wealth distribution by a benevolent and all knowing central government … just enough to level the playing field. uh huh…
Maxine Waters, at least, doesn’t try to disguise her agenda. The evil corporation will succumb, or they will be taxed out of existence as discipline.
Only the most twisted of minds can attempt to reclassify a Founders/Framers intent to keep central government’s control over the sovereign states, individuals and property rights to a bare minimum as proof that wealth redistribution thru that same central government was their plan all along.
…begs the willing suspension of disbelief, if I may borrow the words of Ms. Hillary. But with as little as most know of our history, and American History virtually nonexistent in our public schools, who’s to know the difference?
Then, of course, any debate to the contrary then decends into the demeaning and cluck clucking… sometimes disguised with typed words of sweet nothings, and others with flat out assault. All opposition is met with accusations that the opposer is using pejoratives (usually misspelled by the less than informed as “perjoratives”…). The personal assault, of course, serves as a distraction from the main issue at hand. Just an attempted slap across the face by a silk gloved hand, so to speak.
As long as a debate can be led merrily off path, they feel they have accomplished victory. Generally what they’ve done is just wasted a lot of everyone’s time and energy. But their attempt to charm and cajole continues at every avenue, as they try to appear reasonable… hoping their political beliefs will be accepted and embraced.
Me? I have little to say to a socialist, Marxist, Communist or any of those inbetween. The chasm of belief is far too wide to traverse. There is no middle ground. And the debate tactics have become so familiar and repetitive that engaging only serves to promote ultimate boredom.
There is only those who believe in our nation, as founded, opposing those attempting to slowly transform this into a socialist, “level playing field” abomination. Excellence and achievements are to be shunned as if stolen from those who do not excel and achieve. Therefore, they must be punished in the interest of social justice by the only ones who are the true and wise arbitrator of social justice – the central government. Those who have too much must be robbed to give to those who have too little… earned or not.
Charity has now also been redefined as federal taxation, instead of those helping their community members by free will.
Fact is, the re’education and indoctrination of American youth, via our schools systems, is accomplished word by word, phrase by phrase. Socialists, who advocate implementation of what they feel is cross over Euro-socialist policies, deny that socialism is merely the stage before the end goal of communist. One only need read Ollman’s “What Is Marxism” to figure out the differences are merely slivers, and stepping stones to something else more foreign to our Founding beliefs. Indeed, the difference between the two only lies in the degree of control… economic control vs full government/leadership control. However honesty… perhaps even to those who believe themselves to be socialist, but not Marxist… doesn’t seem to be in their genetic make up.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/20/politics/main601336.shtml
Instead, it concludes that the fuzziness of the manufacturing definition is problematic, because policies — like, for example, a tax credit for manufacturers — may miss their target if the definition is overly broad or narrow.
But reclassifying fast food workers as manufacturing employees could have other advantages for the administration.
Aye: GFY you dishonorable person.
Chutzpah. How about the paragraphs preceding your lift/paste paragraph of convenience, Ivan.
This, of course, totally belies your mischaracterization that you “…. remember when the Bush Administration reclassified “Burger flipping jobs” as jobs in “Manufacturing”. Apparently, to those who can read, that is not true.
Ivan, you are, and remain (comment #65), a dishonorable person.
@Ivan:
Precisely the answer I expected from you…dumbazz.
From your very own cited source:
Dayum Dood!
Don’t you just hate it when your cited sources jump up to bite you?
Course you should be used to it by now, eh?
Once again we point and laugh at you.
Aye; of course the quote I pulled from the story went tight over your thick head. But you’re okay with Bush playing fast and loose with definitions. Honor, look up that word and learn about it.
What’s “thick” is the cloud that fogs your reading ability, Ivan. The Census Bureau defines manufacturing, not the WH… as noted in the simple sentences that I provided and preceded your attempt at a “gotcha” moment. The WH did not reclassify “flipping burgers” as manufacturing. In fact the only one who “classifies” is the Census Bureau. The accusation that the Bush admin benefits from a redefinition… that did not happen… is the opine of the CBS reporter. Not a conclusion of the admin or the Census Bureau.
Desperate attempt at feeding your BDS affliction.
@ivan:
Yo…dumbazz….I’ll even make this easier for you.
Here’s the link to the actual CEA report from 2004.
Find the part in the report that changes the definition of manufacturing. Go ahead. I dare ya.
If you really want to know where the “playing fast and loose” occurs take a look right here.
You say “you can’t make this ship up.” Well, you’re right. That’s why you’re standing there with your panties round your ankles again.
What a pathetic, lying little worm you are.
I am happy with the tone of the comments here — I think I made my point — one person — Wm T Sherman — refers to what “gay” people want — well, we gays are a quite diverse group, sir. Some of us are utter ninnies, and others clueless sissies, still others shills for socialist stupidity, and I could go on about the political views of gays; me, I’m a TEA Party dismantle the federal government type, but I digress.
Indeed, we are diverse as you and Nancy Pelosi, you and John Kerry, you and Bernie Sanders, you and Obama, you and any liberal — etc, etc, — clearly heterosexuality does not confer “liberal” or “conservative” on a person — why then would you think that homosexuality confers “liberal” or “conservative” on us?
Gayness is sissy smooching, guy touching, hottie holding, it’s the emotion and joy of male companionship – it has nothing to do with politics. Heteros make it political, by discussing endlessly, with no conclusion in sight, as if you are afraid that by saying “yes, OK, gay couples exist!” will somehow end every marriage in America and cause millions of hetero hotties to come running down to the gay bar and smooch us, and abandon girls and baby making. We can’t fathom your fear; it is beyond us; we wish you would stop it, and get a grip.
It is not my fault that heteros are fearful of us, for you all are very unsure of yourselves. But we are very sure, only us are gay, and you are not! And by God you heteros will come to this conclusion! Cheers, thanks.
@Wm T Sherman: #5
And you agree with everything every other conservative say’s and does?
Gays are just as diverse as Dims and Repubs are and quite a few are just as disgusted as you are with what takes place in San Francisco.
The only gay I know is a conservative Republican.
@MataHarley
Which is also why it is pure naivete to even consider “compromising” with a party and it’s leadership that has moved from a more balanced party of liberals, moderates and even conservatives to one that has become so radicalized, that it no longer hides it’s socialist-progressive orientation, nor it’s goal to “fundamentally change” our constitutional republic into their Orwellian democratic-socialist “utopia.” The one thing the founding fathers feared was that their great plan would devolve into a pure democracy, which they adamantly were opposed to. Democracies always end up as tyrannical, oppressive regimes with little regard for personal freedoms, which is the complete opposite of the strong but limited-powers government that the founders intended.
@Ivan: As has been pointed out by Aye and Mata, from the source you were FORCED to cite:
BTW, where in the report does it say that President Bush authored it?
You frequent FA enough to have the reputation of someone who throws out opinions as “facts” without bothering to cite your sources and you have the balls to tell Aye to go f*ck himself??
Grow up, little man. As near as I can tell none of the rest of us on still in High School.
.
.
Great article, Warren!
Reminds me of a similar one from a brilliant author. Liberal to English Translation
Er, um in the interest of full disclosure I personally know the above mentioned author.
Okay, it was me, but honestly it would have been a better article except for a tsunami, earthquake, the Arab spring, the previous administration…
😛
I suspect that Ivan is a gay doctor living closeted in Oklahoma. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
@Aye:
Again, you shill for liberal Republicans. The Bush Admin. attempted to pull a fast one on the American public, as I showed you from the quote I pulled, and they got shot down.
You Aye, and Mata, are constantly sticking up for the Bush Admin when you shouldn’t.
Here are things you could have said, but didn’t:
1. Wow, that took some balls for them to attempt confuse the data like the Obama Admin constantly does.
2. It’s a good thing the Press was on top of this and prevented them from doing so!
3. Man was the Bush Admin disingenuous in their reporting!
But no, you focus on “Well they didn’t get away with it!”
This is why you have zero credibility with people other than your delusional Rino-Republicans.
I still welcome you to examine your conscious about your continued support for the Republicans in the Party who are nothing more than internationalists running-dogs who’d sell you and I for a handful of shekels/Pesos/Euros.
We’ve been bought and sold, stop shilling for the elite.
Again Mr. Ivan seems to again need to be reminded about his dishonorable lies he continues to spread about me. (Comment #72 with some excerpts of some of my supposed “shill’ism”)
I have many criticisms of Bush, and the GOP as well on my record. You? Only a disgruntled whiner who peddles hatred and criticism of everyone, based on lies… such as this one to which you still desperately cling after again being proven the victim of incurable BDS. Two simple facts…
1: The Bush WH economic report did not classify burger flipping as manufacturing, and refuses to lump them along side factory jobs. However the Census Dept does classify them as manufacturing… and
2: The only one who thought that was an “advantage” was the CBS “reporter”, opining that Bush could use to his advantage. Which he did not.
But then, your repeated lies and mischaractizations of me don’t affect me personally. One need only look at the source. Laughable to hear you babble about “credibility” with your history, Ivan. You are tolerated here by many because we all need a grin, and watching a stooge can be entertaining sometimes. But I see it as another welcome opportunity to point out your personal dishonor… an opportunity that Aye also likes to use.
We haven’t touched on the way the truth comes out after the lie gets spread.
If a Democrat is alleged to have done something wrong, the media puts it on a back page or skips it on the evening news.
Then the social networks, the web, starts to spread the truth.
A few talk radio hosts and maybe Drudge might pick it up off a back page and splash it around.
Then the media finally covers it – or just says it is ”old news.”
If a Republican is alleged to have done something wrong , it makes the front page and lead on the evening news.
The truth may be hidden if it ends up not fitting the desired agenda.
But the social media does not let a lie about a Republican sit unanswered.
Eventually the real truth comes out, but the damage has been done.
Daryl Issa’s story in the New York Times is a great recent example.
There were so many errors in the original story that, after the 3rd correction, (hidden on a back page) there were calls to retract the whole pack of lies.
But the Times did not retract it.
Anyone who reads the internet sources can access the truths.
But Issa’s work on Obama/Holder’s Fast and Furious, Gunrunner debacle might be tainted by the lies still out there.
Obama/Holder are counting on that.
Language is only 1/2.
Process is the other 1/2.
And of course, Nan G… some just persist in spreading the lies over and over again, despite it being proven otherwise. What was that Einstein definition of insanity again? LOL
Ouch Ivanski!!! Would you like some salve for that savage burn received from Mata on #25?
😛
😆
.
.
Liberals redefining words.
What better place to break this tidbit of news:
Remember the Kelo VS City of New London case in 2005 that made eminent domain infamous?
The idea was that a city had a right to take your property away from you and turn it into something profitable for the city, like a business that pays more taxes.
New London had a deal with Pfizer but after winning the case at the Supreme Court, Pfizer walked away.
So how is that land now being used?
It is a garbage dump.
Video here.
The story is here.
Remember in 2005 when the Supreme Court reassured us in the Kelo decision that the government orchestrated theft “would be executed pursuant to a “carefully considered” development plan?”
@MataHarley: #25
Both Ivan and Greg and others of their kind serve a useful function for blogs such as FA as foils for you and the others here to educate the lurkers in the truth of things like the sound bites that are distorted by the left.
You personally are the reason I’m a rather ardent Sarah Palin supporter. Your authorship of the articles of when she was Alaska Governor explained what was really going on were very much a masterful piece of reporting that should be the envy of so called “real reporters”.
@PurpleDragon, I am honored that I am one of the reasons you participate in Curt’s blog. And I’m also glad you were curious enough to learn more of the truth of the Palin Trooper’gate and complaints to wade thru all those posts I did. Truthfully, I did it for my own education, but constructed those so that I could share what I learned. Thank you for saying it also helped you, and that my own work was not for naught.
I do agree that having voices of dissention is healthy (altho Ivan is a particularly insidious breed of “useless”…. LOL), and I generally respond.. not because I expect the commenter to repent of ill thought out beliefs… but just for those that do lurk and do not comment. Apparently for some time, you have been one of those, save for some recent times. So welcome out of the commenting closet.
I do hope that you, like our anticsrocks, tend to your personal health and that recovery is the order of the day. I treasure voices and individual reasoning/curiousity like both of you possess. So I hope you don’t let the depression or medical woes get the best of you, and you stick around and help us stir the pots of debate.
@Nan G, INRE Kelo… why am I so tempted to jest that a “dump” in what is a traditional liberal area of the nation, like New England, may indeed actually be beneficial! LOL
Okay, okay… that’s a joke, y’all. Yes yes, I know there are individuals of all political stripes strewn all over the nation.. not to mention New London is a home to a Naval base. I was, after all, a Naval wife stationed there over 40 years ago. But sorry…. I thought of New England, the heavy concentration of liberal politics they refuse to shake, and thought a “dump” isn’t so out of line at all. So sorry if I offended. Just a flash across the mind that made me smile. You have to get whatever smiles you can out of bad situations these days, you know.
@Ditto, sorry about the delayed response here. Been busy triaging life with a bit of fun in the blog world. Seems to be little time for that of late.
I agree completely that I was far more tolerant of the “death by a thousand cuts” mentality years ago than I am now. Thus the reason you won’t find me a “party animal”, that throws my weight behind anyone but Obama in the next election. It will be one who speaks (and hopefully acts as) a true fiscal conservative, or nothing. I’m done with the compromise. If it’s not genuine “change”, then Obama can eat his cold peas at the table for another four years – along with his Euro-socialist cronies – and have no one to blame it on to redeem a legacy that he is, probably, already worried about. I will take no RINO’s/Obama’lite as the scapegoat for Obama’s future fingerpointing.
@MataHarley:
The intent to reclassify was there and you know it. Pathetic attempt to CYA for the Bush Admin.
@MataHarley:
And was the Census Dept. part of the Bush Administration?
@MataHarley:
Doesn’t this infuriate you? Aye, aren’t you outraged by this?
Why are you people so reluctant to call a spade a spade; Bush was and is a liberal Republican!!!
You lambaste me for my anti-liberal comments, then stand in harmony with a liberal (Bush) who did more to destroy the Republican Party in 2006 and 2008 than any one else.
HELLO!!!????????
dang… three more gasps for air. Watching Ivan squirm is almost like watching a hooked fish, flop around helplessly on the dock.
The only difference is, with the fish, I feel some empathy….
@MataHarley: Good analogy, does this mean we can throw him back??
@anticsrocks:
Why continue to contaminate the pond, antics? I say throw him up on the bank and let the carrion birds have him.
@Ivan:
Hmmm. You now imply “intent” is the same as your original statement of “I remember when the Bush Administration reclassified “Burger flipping jobs” as jobs in “Manufacturing””. Please show sources for the intent, as well as how this wasn’t the case in previous years prior to Bush.
Your biggest mistake, Ivan, is you thinking that conservatives here are ‘Bush apologists’. And you telling someone you describe as “dishonorable” to GFY is the height of irony, at least in this topic.
Mr, Civility Obama is speaking live in Detroit about Jobs.
He has already used three (at least) gun references.
“They’ve got you in their sights,” he said about Republicans and union workers.
And ”we are going to see if they are straight shooters or not,”
And ”they’re targeting you….”
And that’s just for starters.
“Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.”
I trust we’ll all be keeping with the spirit of the occasion today.
There you go with that sanitized history version, Greg. Would you like the true story of the “celebration”? It’s called Grover Cleveland appeasement for the fed troopers, breaking up the Pullman strike back in 1894.
Were those strikers heroic? Well, I guess it all depends upon where you’re coming from.
Let’s see… private employer, faced with loss of business. So he lays people off and cuts wages in order to keep the company a’float. But the workers don’t care if the business survives and they have a job tomorrow. They *want* lower rents and higher wages. Hey… that’ll teach a private employer to attempt to provide the socialistic communal utopia. Doesn’t take long for your community masses to turn on you if the going gets tough, and their bennies are cut off.
Now if you’re already on the brink of bankruptcy for a business, can one afford that? Personally, I think Pullman should have just folded and let them all bite the weinie.
But no… the “I wants” rioted, burned Pullman cars, and further exacerbated an already bad economic position for the company. So they took the law and their anger to the streets.
So it’s union thugs who destroy property and make unreasonable demands for a failing business that you want to celebrate? Count me out. I would have liked a BBQ, but I had to work today. No holiday, celebrating union thugs, for those keeping their noses to the grindstone.
Eugene Deb, BTW, campaigned from jail and got almost a million votes for POTUS on the Socialist Party ticket. Gee.. why isn’t that surprising. Cleveland, of course, lost the election.
Now I certainly have respect for the early unions, fighting for better conditions and hours. But they are out of control today. And I have no respect for union methods of bullying, thug threats of bodily harm, and destruction of private property. Most especially for a company that was fighting to survive during that economic depression. Out of line…. and far from any reason to celebrate, IMHO.
But you just stick with your Wiki and DOL sanitized version, glorifying the union. We can’t let a few facts get in the way, eh?
Enjoy your hot dog….
@MataHarley: Mata, I was just too tired to reply any more to such ignorance. Thank you for your post!
@Randy, no problem. While traveling the roads today for work, I was monitoring some of the talk radio shows, and a genuinely honest type actually broadcast the real history… not usual to hear that stuff. Nice that someone cares to get the story straight….
… the rest? Starry eyed and clueless. I guess they are happier that way.
@Greggie: You never fail to disappoint, Greggie. Tell me, what IS it like to just be so consistently wrong?
Oh, I dunno, @anticsrocks. Greg’s “redefinition” of Labor Day seems somewhat appropriate to the message of the original post, don’t you think? Kinda hard to deny it when Greg so graciously decided to prove Warren’s point for him, yes?
@MataHarley: LOL, you have me there! =D
@Ivan:
I know it’s generally considered socially unacceptable to continually pick on the retarded kid on the playground but, since you keep returning for more, I’ll make an exception for you.
Here’s what you claimed in #6:
Then, when challenged you selectively posted from a source that clearly said:
Nope. No reclassification there. That flies in the face of the story you’re trying to tell, eh?
Even with a link to the actual CEA report, you still cannot show where the supposed reclassifying occurred.
You made a claim. Where’s the documentation to support your claim?
Come on little man. Where’s your proof? Where’s your source material?
Oh, that’s right. You don’t have any.
Once again, we point and laugh at you.
Don’t forget that “tolerance” and “hate” are also redefined.
Hate is now anytime you disagree with one of their viewpoints on a controversial matter.
Tolerance now means you must accept their alternative viewpoint, rather than just tolerating its existence.
@Jarhead68:
Hi there…I was wondering if you knew a Clyde Poppleton in high school. I am his step daughter. I was reading a comment on a thread about an article of him with the tag name jarhead68. I sent that person a comment on that website but I do not think they will get it, as they have not re-visited the site since 2017. I then searched for people that used the tag name jarhead and your name came up. I apologized for bothering you if this was not you. If you did, however, know my father, I would LOVE to talk to you. Thank you for your time.
Tess.hdsc@yahoo.com