NationStates Jolt Archive

I constantly see people here equating liberalism with elitism. They think that liberals are elitists, and that somehow conservatism is the politics of we ordinary people.

To the original poster:
The fact that you want to "educate" people from Alabama makes you appear like a typical, stuff shirt a-hole from the North who thinks he knows better how to take care of me than I do. Just because people from Alabama believe in a religion and like to own guns does not mean that you are better than them somehow.
the Democratic party is far more a friend of the middle and low economic classes than the Republican party has ever been, and yet we've been successfully cast as the party of the elite. We're the party of minorities and working class labor union types and yet we're the elite? Jeez--black really is white and up really is down in this world.
I don't think it has occurred to them even for a moment that maybe... just maybe... the reason Bush won was because the people voted him in, and it's that simple. They rejected Kerry and chose Bush. Nothing went wrong, nothing malfunctioned, the process isn't broken. The people have spoken, and the liberals won't open their eyes and see the reason.

The answer is, because despite the best efforts of the liberal media, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. That's why.
Let's finally put this damned issue to rest, shall we? Kerry lost because he was a liar, an idiot, a no-show Senator, a far left-winger, a Boston brahmin, an elitist pig, and totally out of touch with the American people.

I think you get the idea.

So conservatives, tell us why liberals are so "elitist".

The ideology of corporate conservatism has always seemed to me to be a system that was entirely beneficial to the rich only. So how is this not the elite ideology? Incertonia is right. Black is white. Up is down. Slavery is freedom.

I love this Massachusetts = Sodom and Gommorah thing that alot of conservatives have.

because knowing facts means your intelligent, being intelligent means you had an education, having an education means your smarter than their dumbasses, thus you are an elitist

Because we're all volvo driving, french wine sipping, new york times reading snobs. Didn't you get the memo?

Yea... I've loved this dichotomy... the party of the ultra rich is the party of the people... whilst the more liberal socially minded one is the party of the elite... makes total sense to me O_o

I guess the way to view it is... Bush appears to be massively mentally lacking whilst liberalism is something which on the whole comes with education...

See, this is how y'all get the elitist reputation. When you point out people's faults they think you're arrogant. :D

See, this is how y'all get the elitist reputation. When you point out people's faults they think you're arrogant. :D
And yet Jesus pointed out others faults too.
Jesus was a elitist? Yeah, we got Jesus's vote :P

It is simply a matter of "doublethink" they think that their trying to force every one to be evangelical christians and to folow the moral codes of fundamentalsist evangelicals is being open minded. While democrats following their own moral values of social equality and freedom of expression and religon for all not just evangelical fundalmentalists is being elite. :mad: What me biter what would make you think that ;)

The most socially progressive people in societies are almost always the educators and intellectuals. When they say elitists, at least the ones that actually know what they are saying, are referring to intellectual elites, not economic ones.

There are a rather large group of people who mindlessly label people according to the speaking points they hear people say. That may be where the misinterpretation comes from.

Ok as I get into the Frey I can see the argument (except as usual chess’s normal blathering)

I *THINK* what they mean is the party portrays itself as the “enlightened* one

Anyone in it obviously is educated … if they disagree with the democratic point of view they are obviously un educated (a lot like what chess says)

It is the same with republicans and their moral elitism, lol really is two sides of one coin

And yet Jesus pointed out others faults too.
Jesus was a elitist? Yeah, we got Jesus's vote :P

Did Jesus do that? If you asked me, Jesus was a friend to the common man (the fisherman, the tax collector, the prostitutes), and an enemy to the elitest (the pharisee's, seducee's etc etc. Those that were educated in the laws) :p

Plus, Jesus preached forgiveness, not condemnation.

(Anyway, we're off topic)

And yet Jesus pointed out others faults too.

Yep. Some people thought that was arrogant, as I said, and they put him on a cross for it.

Jesus was a elitist?

No, but I'm sure some people saw him that way.

they claim there elitist because liberals tend to have educations.education leads to the eventual understanding that blind faith leads only to intolerance and death.

yet they wish to force there morals on others,the definition of intolerance.

christian conservitives are hypocrits.jesus would vote blue.

they claim there elitist because liberals tend to have educations.education leads to the eventual understanding that blind faith leads only to intolerance and death.

yet they wish to force there morals on others,the definition of intolerance.

christian conservitives are hypocrits.jesus would vote blue.
Yay can we say perpetuating stereotypes

“All republicans are ignorant” that is exactly why the call it elitism

Yea... I've loved this dichotomy... the party of the ultra rich is the party of the people... whilst the more liberal socially minded one is the party of the elite... makes total sense to me O_o

I guess the way to view it is... Bush appears to be massively mentally lacking whilst liberalism is something which on the whole comes with education...
... George Soros and THK anyone?


Also, it would be more correct to say that the republicans have more of the middle to middle upper class. The rich are more evenly divided, but they still lean towards the republicans. The Ultra rich actually are a tour de force of Democrats unless they actively work. Then they are generally republican. The poor of the cities generally vote Dem while the poor of the countryside generally vote Repub.

I love this Massachusetts = Sodom and Gommorah thing that alot of conservatives have.
especially since Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate of any state in the Union, while Bible Belt states have divorce rates that are consistently above average. Bible Belt states also have higher homicide rates, higher teen pregnancy rates, and higher rates of STD infection.

so remember, you nutty left-wingers: next time somebody tries to insult you by comparing you to a Massachusetts liberal, what they are saying is that you have fewer diseases, a more stable marriage, and you are less likely to be murdered! TAKE THAT, BABY-EATING TREE-HUGGERS!!!

Yay can we say perpetuating stereotypes

“All republicans are ignorant” that is exactly why the call it elitism

well or selfish.are there any republicans who arent.
A.uneducated not knowing what there really doing and just doing as they were taught,theres people on both sides like this.i want them educated anyways.something about choice.
B.psychos who refuse to accept that change is the universal constant(welp there conservitives for a reason)
C.moral obbsessed people who embrace immoral morals.
D.rich and selfish.

its just the ones who label us elitist tend to be A and christian.at least to my understanding.i highly doubt there are any people under A in there forums.

especially since Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate of any state in the Union, while Bible Belt states have divorce rates that are consistently above average. Bible Belt states also have higher homicide rates, higher teen pregnancy rates, and higher rates of STD infection.

so remember, you nutty left-wingers: next time somebody tries to insult you by comparing you to a Massachusetts liberal, what they are saying is that you have fewer diseases, a more stable marriage, and you are less likely to be murdered! TAKE THAT, BABY-EATING TREE-HUGGERS!!!
This would be because most of the people who do all that stuff moved to New York.

you call someone en elitist when they make you feel inferior to them.

Conservatives feel inferior around liberals.

you call someone en elitist when they make you feel inferior to them.

Conservatives feel inferior around liberals.
No you are elitist when you form a “club” and anyone in that club must not contain certain “attributes”

Think little boys with a tree house club

Its so silly but it is what happens

No you are elitist when you form a “club” and anyone in that club must not contain certain “attributes”

Think little boys with a tree house club

Its so silly but it is what happens

You think tree house, I think religion.

Yea... I've loved this dichotomy... the party of the ultra rich is the party of the people... whilst the more liberal socially minded one is the party of the elite... makes total sense to me O_o

I guess the way to view it is... Bush appears to be massively mentally lacking whilst liberalism is something which on the whole comes with education...
Cos how else will a party that represents a minority of society convince the majority that they have something in common? Can't say they have wealth in common so why not unite in hatred of those who point out uncomfortable truths. Fahrenheit 451 anyone?

you call someone en elitist when they make you feel inferior to them.

Conservatives feel inferior around liberals.
*blinks*
Interesting, cause I thought it was the fact that all the intellectual elitists have a hard time dealing with this thing called "reality". So, of course, do the poster child religious nuts on the republicans side, but that doesn't change the fact that many of the teachers I have had are nutjobs when it comes to politics.

liberals are "elitist" because it takes more than gut-feeling and hear-say, as well as a certain level of conscientiousness and - dare i say it - compassion, to hold the opinions of a liberal. Most people wont bother - just keep looking at their lot and dont give a shit about anyone else, and that's why its not the choice of the 'ordinary pubic'.

then again it depends on what country you're talking about - ordinary people seem to be less standardly conservative in Europe than America.

Cos how else will a party that represents a minority of society convince the majority that they have something in common? Can't say they have wealth in common so why not unite in hatred of those who point out uncomfortable truths. Fahrenheit 451 anyone?
The thing is that conservatives DO have some things in common with the ordinary red state folks. They share a common beleif in religion, morality, and personal freedom. Unfortunately, their morality doesn't really extend to helping the poor and their idea of personal freedom doesn't include homosexuality, or personal decisions on drug use, religion, etc.

The liberal movement is typecast to Massachusetts, Ivy League, etc. A lot of conservatives ignore the fact that the Democratic Party enjoys wide support across the industrial North (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota) as well as the very anti-tax states of New Hampshire and Maine, and the fairly moderate Southwest.

Surely not every one of the 58 million people who voted for Kerry is a snobbish vegetarian lispy university professor.

And just for balance, I'm sure not every one of the 61 million Bush voters is an inbred gun-toting gay-bashing redneck.

The thing is that conservatives DO have some things in common with the ordinary red state folks. They share a common beleif in religion, morality, and personal freedom. Unfortunately, their morality doesn't really extend to helping the poor and their idea of personal freedom doesn't include homosexuality, or personal decisions on drug use, religion, etc.
Yes, I did simplify quite a bit but then so do advocates on the other side. Things like religion don't play a part in Europe religion is not purely associated with the right as it tends to be an issue that is seen as too important to play politics with. It is always a slight problem for the european mainstream right to be associated with the american right because of this. To us the use of religion by them seems like a vote winning tactic. Plenty of left wing people are religious as well so why should one type of politics be allowed to claim it as their own?

The thing is that conservatives DO have some things in common with the ordinary red state folks. They share a common beleif in religion, morality, and personal freedom. Unfortunately, their morality doesn't really extend to helping the poor and their idea of personal freedom doesn't include homosexuality, or personal decisions on drug use, religion, etc.

Conservatives share a common belief in Christianity, not religion.

With that said:
Personal freedom and christianity are inversely related. The more you are willing to be religious the more you must be open to authoritarism. I'm not saying this as part of a republican=nazi nonsense argument. I am saying this out of a fundamental qualification for christianity to give up your life to a higher power. Benevolent or not, God is foremost a dictator.

Yes, I did simplify quite a bit but then so do advocates on the other side. Things like religion don't play a part in Europe religion is not purely associated with the right as it tends to be an issue that is seen as too important to play politics with. It is always a slight problem for the european mainstream right to be associated with the american right because of this. To us the use of religion by them seems like a vote winning tactic. Plenty of left wing people are religious as well so why should one type of politics be allowed to claim it as their own?

If that is true, I admire European cynicism.

We are far too worried about our side winning on this side of the pond to worry about the tactics the respective sides choose.

Conservatives share a common belief in Christianity, not religion.

With that said:
Personal freedom and christianity are inversely related. The more you are willing to be religious the more you must be open to authoritarism. I'm not saying this as part of a republican=nazi nonsense argument. I am saying this out of a fundamental qualification for christianity to give up your life to a higher power. Benevolent or not, God is foremost a dictator.

There is a *huge* difference between "giving up your life to God" and wishing for an authoritarian government - or wishing to be authoritarian yourself. Christianity (except in the case of the strict predestinationists, who are pretty scary) is very clear that God gave human beings free will. While humans may choose to subject that will to God as a "dictator," if you will - there is nothing at all to suggest that they (the Christians) have the right to take that free will from others.

If that is true, I admire European cynicism.

We are far too worried about our side winning on this side of the pond to worry about the tactics the respective sides choose.
I don't know if it is really cynicism as the feeling that religion is somehow to important to let politicians of any type get their hands on. Obviously the degree of separation varies but I think in general this is more true here than in the US.

Regarding your other post, monotheistic religions do have an authoritarian elemant to them but the degree to which that is expressed varies. I would suggest that it is most prevalent in the Protestant churches that developed in Britain and the US in the eighteenth/nineteenth centuries and the Catholic Church. The difference with the latter is that it is not exclusively tied to left or right - that changes in different parts of the world.

Conservatives share a common belief in Christianity, not religion.
Quite true. Religious (but non-Christian) voters went for Kerry over Bush by 74%-24%. This group was only about 10% of total voters however. Another 10% of voters were non-religious, and voted Kerry 67%-31%. The remaining 80% of Christian America went for Bush by about 57%-42%.


(Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html )

if they disagree with the democratic point of view they are obviously un educated (a lot like what chess says)


Un-Educated? That means you were educated, but because stupid. I believe the word you were looking for was "not educated." That would be alot better...

Great, I strolled off topic...

There is a *huge* difference between "giving up your life to God" and wishing for an authoritarian government - or wishing to be authoritarian yourself. Christianity (except in the case of the strict predestinationists, who are pretty scary) is very clear that God gave human beings free will. While humans may choose to subject that will to God as a "dictator," if you will - there is nothing at all to suggest that they (the Christians) have the right to take that free will from others.

I said that Christians must have an openness to authority, not a longing for it. (Although, a need for the authority is also open for debate)

In Christianity there is no choice in being subjected to God. HE IS LORD. There isn't anything more clearly authoritative than that.

Also, authoritarian governments always allow free will, but strike down harshly against anybody who breaks the law. They are also quick to strike down against anyone who doesn't agree or believe in the authority. This sounds a lot like hell to me.

But you are right that christianity never provided an excuse for taking free will away from others.

because knowing facts means your intelligent, being intelligent means you had an education, having an education means your smarter than their dumbasses, thus you are an elitist

Here's an example.

Here's an example.
Lol glad you saw it too

christian conservitives are hypocrits.jesus would vote blue.

Can anyone find the definition of irony for me?

Here's an example.

Well, that summed up the whole thread...

In Christianity there is no choice in being subjected to God. HE IS LORD. There isn't anything more clearly authoritative than that.

However, there is choice involved in following God. Christianity (again, except for the strict predestinationists) does not believe that God is using a forceful hand and causing every action of every person. God is the Lord, but does not force a person into following. The person in question *chooses* to follow God's will, even if it does not coincide with what they want.

Also, authoritarian governments always allow free will, but strike down harshly against anybody who breaks the law. They are also quick to strike down against anyone who doesn't agree or believe in the authority. This sounds a lot like hell to me.

Hell is separation from God, nothing more, nothing less. Authoritarian governments punish those who do not agree or believe in the authority, they don't say "fine then, well you don't get to be around me then."

if alabama likes to own weapons of murder and be stupid, than that does mean that other americans and brits are better than them.

if alabama likes to own weapons of murder and be stupid, than that does mean that other americans and brits are better than them.
Lol a car can be a weapon of murder … how many people do you know own a car :p how many people do you know that own a car?

if alabama likes to own weapons of murder and be stupid, than that does mean that other americans and brits are better than them.

Oh, really? I believe all weapons are weapons of murder. But anyway...

Can you be one to judge whom is better than whom? I don't think so. And people in Alabama believe that they need weapons to arm themselves. What is wrong with being safe? And the Founding Fathers must agree with them, because the Second Ammendment allows them to have arms.

if alabama likes to own weapons of murder and be stupid, than that does mean that other americans and brits are better than them.
Not really. Owning guns doesn't make one stupid or inferior. Assuming that your religion supercedes science and law and should be taught in biology classes and promoted by the courts does.

Oh, really? I believe all weapons are weapons of murder. But anyway...

Can you be one to judge whom is better than whom? I don't think so. And people in Alabama believe that they need weapons to arm themselves. What is wrong with being safe? And the Founding Fathers must agree with them, because the Second Ammendment allows them to have arms.
Gee, I've never murdered anyone with my weapons. Am I missing something?

Oh, really? I believe all weapons are weapons of murder. But anyway...

Can you be one to judge whom is better than whom? I don't think so. And people in Alabama believe that they need weapons to arm themselves. What is wrong with being safe? And the Founding Fathers must agree with them, because the Second Ammendment allows them to have arms.
Of murder … murder is only ILLIGAL killing so if the law says it is legal …

And guns can be used in legal ways as of now … so maybe weapons of killing is more like it

Gee, I've never murdered anyone with my weapons. Am I missing something?

I believe so. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't weapons supposed to be use to murder/protect one's self?

Well, I guess you are sorta right. You can injure some one with weapons...but I am sure that you understand what I meant when I said it. You are just trying to make someone look inferior to you by making me look bad. Yeah, lets not do that.

However, there is choice involved in following God. Christianity (again, except for the strict predestinationists) does not believe that God is using a forceful hand and causing every action of every person. God is the Lord, but does not force a person into following. The person in question *chooses* to follow God's will, even if it does not coincide with what they want.

There is a choice in following an authoritarian government, as well. The results of such action would include torture in death.

I believe there is a very well known bible verse that goes:
"The wages of sin are death."

Hell is separation from God, nothing more, nothing less. Authoritarian governments punish those who do not agree or believe in the authority, they don't say "fine then, well you don't get to be around me then."

I would be fine with a separation from God, I have been "separated" from God for years and have gotten along fine, it is the eternal burning and suffering that I would like to avoid.

I believe so. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't weapons supposed to be use to murder/protect one's self?

Well, I guess you are sorta right. You can injure some one with weapons...but I am sure that you understand what I meant when I said it. You are just trying to make someone look inferior to you by making me look bad. Yeah, lets not do that.
They can be, they can also be used for recreational shooting, and hunting, and just plain collecting. Shit, I could kill people with almost anything. Should we ban anything not made by playskool or nerf?

Of murder … murder is only ILLIGAL killing so if the law says it is legal …

And guns can be used in legal ways as of now … so maybe weapons of killing is more like it

Did you not understand that I meant the Second Ammendment allowed the right to bear arms? If you knew that, then you wouldn't have made that post...

I would be fine with a separation from God, I have been "separated" from God for years and have gotten along fine, it is the eternal burning and suffering that I would like to avoid.

So then you acknowledge an existence of a god?

I'm going to cut it out with the gun stuff now. This isn't the thread for it. Sorry.

I would be fine with a separation from God, I have been "separated" from God for years and have gotten along fine, it is the eternal burning and suffering that I would like to avoid.

The "eternal burning and suffering" is a metaphor for the suffering that being separated from God would bring. For those who do follow God, being completely separated would be "like" burning in a lake of fire. Basically, the author of, say, Revelation was using the worst metaphor they could think of because, for them, being separated from God would be the absolute worst thing ever.

They can be, they can also be used for recreational shooting, and hunting, and just plain collecting.

Touche. But in posting this, you are not hurting my cause, but insted Arjunville's, who implied that having weapons are plain stupid.

They can be, they can also be used for recreational shooting, and hunting, and just plain collecting. Shit, I could kill people with almost anything. Should we ban anything not made by playskool or nerf?

You could shove a nerf ball down someone's throat and suffocate them. So ban Nerf.

So then you acknowledge an existence of a god?

I am saying that if there happens to be a God, I have been separated from him.

To argue the properties of Christianity, you must assume that its tenets are true.

this board is a good example of one big difference, conservatives don't share liberals' hatred/fear of religion and guns. If someone in Kentucky likes to own guns and pray in school, he doesn't want a liberal government telling him he can't.

The whole separation of church and state is completely overblown, and when people talk about the Patriot Act curbing First Amendment rights, how is gun control not curbing second amendment rights?

You could shove a nerf ball down someone's throat and suffocate them. So ban Nerf.

The chance of that is...?

Well, I guess the chances would be pretty high if everything else were banned. So, yes, ban nerf.

The "eternal burning and suffering" is a metaphor for the suffering that being separated from God would bring. For those who do follow God, being completely separated would be "like" burning in a lake of fire. Basically, the author of, say, Revelation was using the worst metaphor they could think of because, for them, being separated from God would be the absolute worst thing ever.

Well then, Hell might just be one "hell" of a place to be. I would just lose the presense of Christians since I lost the presense of God long ago.

The whole separation of church and state is completely overblown, and when people talk about the Patriot Act curbing First Amendment rights, how is gun control not curbing second amendment rights?

Exactly.

Well then, Hell might just be one "hell" of a place to be. I would just lose the presense of Christians since I lost the presense of God long ago.

To each his own...

this board is a good example of one big difference, conservatives don't share liberals' hatred/fear of religion and guns. If someone in Kentucky likes to own guns and pray in school, he doesn't want a liberal government telling him he can't.

The whole separation of church and state is completely overblown, and when people talk about the Patriot Act curbing First Amendment rights, how is gun control not curbing second amendment rights?
A true liberal would love to let him pray in school they just wouldn’t want him forcing prayer in school on others.

this board is a good example of one big difference, conservatives don't share liberals' hatred/fear of religion and guns. If someone in Kentucky likes to own guns and pray in school, he doesn't want a liberal government telling him he can't.

The whole separation of church and state is completely overblown, and when people talk about the Patriot Act curbing First Amendment rights, how is gun control not curbing second amendment rights?
This liberal doesn't care if you own guns and pray in school. However, if the school tried to encourage prayer, that's a different story. It violates the establishment clause. That school is using tax money to spread a religious beleif.

The whole separation of church and state is completely overblown, and when people talk about the Patriot Act curbing First Amendment rights, how is gun control not curbing second amendment rights?
Thus I take the high road and support both the First and Second Amendment. :)

this board is a good example of one big difference, conservatives don't share liberals' hatred/fear of religion and guns. If someone in Kentucky likes to own guns and pray in school, he doesn't want a liberal government telling him he can't.

The whole separation of church and state is completely overblown, and when people talk about the Patriot Act curbing First Amendment rights, how is gun control not curbing second amendment rights?

There is no fear of religion. There is a fear of authority which is inherent in religion.

As for guns I don't care about them, own them if you want.

But PLEASE do not turn this thread into a second amendment thread. We already have plenty of those.

I think the biggest problem is that people never have any civilized debates anymore because they don't know exactly what they're talking about. Trying to classify everyone who agrees with a certain party as a Liberal or Elitist or Conservative is not the correct way to look at things. That's what they call "Political Parties." If the world is so free that people cannot express their own opinions without being seen as part of a different entity and not as a single human being then why do any of you keep going on? Think for yourselves for once and stop spewing what TV has hammered into your brain all day, every day. Instead, try to focus on the real issues that concern yourself as a person that are more important than just the classification of a single person.

(If anyone would like to reply just send me a telegram or something, trying to find this again will be like a needle in a haystack.)

The choice for President was between a traitor or a coward: give me the coward anyday with that choice(hence my vote for Bush).

I am NOT a christian, nor would I want to be.

Im sick of the Liberial Republicans and the Socialist/Communist Democrates.
I'm a Conservative and hate both parties.

Just as a reminder to those "educated liberials" it was the Republicans who freed the slaves and granted women and blacks the right to vote, while the Democrates tried to block these issues.

So much for your specialised "Educations"

And for Bible belt not helpping the poor, check again the average chairity donation to income ratio, Oklahoma gave more than New York and most ALL of New England.

Enjoy!

I think the biggest problem is that people never have any civilized debates anymore because they don't know exactly what they're talking about. Trying to classify everyone who agrees with a certain party as a Liberal or Elitist or Conservative is not the correct way to look at things. That's what they call "Political Parties." If the world is so free that people cannot express their own opinions without being seen as part of a different entity and not as a single human being then why do any of you keep going on? Think for yourselves for once and stop spewing what TV has hammered into your brain all day, every day. Instead, try to focus on the real issues that concern yourself as a person that are more important than just the classification of a single person.

Ok, smart guy, give us an example of some things that people in this thread do not know what they are talking about. In fact, where have I "spewed" shit in which I don't know what I am talking about.

The choice for President was between a traitor or a coward: give me the coward anyday with that choice(hence my vote for Bush).

I am NOT a christian, nor would I want to be.

Im sick of the Liberial Republicans and the Socialist/Communist Democrates.
I'm a Conservative and hate both parties.

Just as a reminder to those "educated liberials" it was the Republicans who freed the slaves and granted women and blacks the right to vote, while the Democrates tried to block these issues.

So much for your specialised "Educations"

And for Bible belt not helpping the poor, check again the average chairity donation to income ratio, Oklahoma gave more than New York and most ALL of New England.

Enjoy!

Are you sure that was worth two cents? You managed to offer generalizations and stereotypes for just about every group and provided absolutely nothing useful to this thread.

The choice for President was between a traitor or a coward: give me the coward anyday with that choice(hence my vote for Bush).

I am NOT a christian, nor would I want to be.

Im sick of the Liberial Republicans and the Socialist/Communist Democrates.
I'm a Conservative and hate both parties.

Just as a reminder to those "educated liberials" it was the Republicans who freed the slaves and granted women and blacks the right to vote, while the Democrates tried to block these issues.

So much for your specialised "Educations"

And for Bible belt not helpping the poor, check again the average chairity donation to income ratio, Oklahoma gave more than New York and most ALL of New England.

Enjoy!

Issues older than himself by at least a few hundred years should not be relevant today (freeing the slaves.)

If I recall correctly Black people had to fight teeth and nail to get the right to vote as well, NOT THE ALMIGHTY REPUBLICANS.

The "eternal burning and suffering" is a metaphor for the suffering that being separated from God would bring. For those who do follow God, being completely separated would be "like" burning in a lake of fire. Basically, the author of, say, Revelation was using the worst metaphor they could think of because, for them, being separated from God would be the absolute worst thing ever.

I think the fact that Christians believe that being away from their "Lord" to be the worst thing ever only proves the correlation between authoritarianism and Christianity.

Hate to break the off-topic debates . . . . well not really.

Liberals have recieved the title of elitist by making threads/studies/whatever to try to show how much smarter/richer/cleaner/ect they are than conservatives.

As we all know, most Liberals do not go around spewing this stuff out. Most don't even believe it. Only a select few of the far, far left spew out this complete BS. Unfortunately, these select few of the far, far left have the largest mouths.

So in conclusion, liberals have recieved the title of elitist because of a few dumbasses with large mouths who happen to share their views.

I believe so. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't weapons supposed to be use to murder/protect one's self?


Saying something general like Weapons are used for protection is idiotic. Weapons like say... nuclear missiles are not used for defense or protection. The only use for them are to destroy large portions of a society.

The choice for President was between a traitor or a coward: give me the coward anyday with that choice(hence my vote for Bush).

I am NOT a christian, nor would I want to be.

Im sick of the Liberial Republicans and the Socialist/Communist Democrates.
I'm a Conservative and hate both parties.

Just as a reminder to those "educated liberials" it was the Republicans who freed the slaves and granted women and blacks the right to vote, while the Democrates tried to block these issues.

So much for your specialised "Educations"

And for Bible belt not helpping the poor, check again the average chairity donation to income ratio, Oklahoma gave more than New York and most ALL of New England.

Enjoy!

I sure as hell did...



Are you sure that was worth two cents? You managed to offer generalizations and stereotypes for just about every group and provided absolutely nothing useful to this thread.

I saw no stereotypes.

I constantly see people here equating liberalism with elitism. They think that liberals are elitists, and that somehow conservatism is the politics of we ordinary people.






I think you get the idea.

So conservatives, tell us why liberals are so "elitist".

The ideology of corporate conservatism has always seemed to me to be a system that was entirely beneficial to the rich only. So how is this not the elite ideology? Incertonia is right. Black is white. Up is down. Slavery is freedom.

Time for a little lesson. When people go out and earn money on their own, they tend to want to keep it, maybe give some to their favorite charity, maybe use it for their retirment or the kid's college fund. People who have never worked a real job a day in their lives (we call them actors and media pundits) decide that they know what is best for a person, some of us red staters have a problem with that.

Just as a reminder to those "educated liberials" it was the Republicans who freed the slaves and granted women and blacks the right to vote, while the Democrates tried to block these issues.
Actually, it was Northern Liberals who freed the slaves and granted voting rights to women and blacks, and Southern Conservatives who opposed such issues.

Back then however, Northern Liberals were mostly Republicans, and Southern Conservatives were mostly Democrats. Times change, parties switch, but ideologies die hard.

I think the fact that Christians believe that being away from their "Lord" to be the worst thing ever only proves the correlation between authoritarianism and Christianity.

Authoritarianism isn't necessarily a bad thing. But I think you said this before in this thread . . . haven't you?

Anyway, if their "Lord" was omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient then I'd be pretty mad about being separated from him too.

Did Jesus do that? If you asked me, Jesus was a friend to the common man (the fisherman, the tax collector, the prostitutes), and an enemy to the elitest (the pharisee's, seducee's etc etc. Those that were educated in the laws) :p

Plus, Jesus preached forgiveness, not condemnation.

(Anyway, we're off topic)
Tax collector... liberals in favoure of higher taxes.
Prostitues... far left liberals in favour of decriminialisation or legalisation

Pharisees... the "whitewashed tombs", the religious men who did not practice what they preached... Frank Dobson and Jerry Fallwell anyone?

Saying something general like Weapons are used for protection is idiotic. Weapons like say... nuclear missiles are not used for defense or protection. The only use for them are to destroy large portions of a society.
Seems to me nuclear weapons probably prevented the US and USSR from waging a war that would have ruined Europe. So much for your theory.

Saying something general like Weapons are used for protection is idiotic. Weapons like say... nuclear missiles are not used for defense or protection.

Your shitting me, right? I hope you are being sarcastic....

Nuclear Missiles are used for defence. Did the United States not use the Atomic Bomb in Hirroshima or Nagasaki in use of defence? I believe we were in time of war, thus bombing them was the only way to defend ourselves.

Just as a reminder to those "educated liberials" it was the Republicans who freed the slaves and granted women and blacks the right to vote, while the Democrates tried to block these issues.

You do realize that the Republican party of that time was more similar to todys Democratic party and vise versa. They have done a polar switch over tha years.

If you bring up history please have a clue as to what you're talking about.

Authoritarianism isn't necessarily a bad thing. But I think you said this before in this thread . . . haven't you?

Anyway, if their "Lord" was omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient then I'd be pretty mad about being separated from him too.

Omnipresent, anyone?

[EDIT] Well, I killed a thread...

Things like religion don't play a part in Europe. Religion is not purely associated with the right as it tends to be an issue that is seen as too important to play politics with. It is always a slight problem for the european mainstream right to be associated with the american right because of this. To us the use of religion by them seems like a vote winning tactic. Plenty of left wing people are religious as well so why should one type of politics be allowed to claim it as their own?
This poster is absolutely correct. I have plenty of religious (mostly Catholic) friends who view the attitude to religion in America as depraved. Religion is treated like a whore there. "Televangelists" use it to get money and politicians use it to get votes. There is none of what is good about religion - spirituality, goodwill towards others, etc.

In America religion is a tool of the powerful used to control the masses.

It is elitist to impose your morality on others.

Time for a little lesson. When people go out and earn money on their own, they tend to want to keep it, maybe give some to their favorite charity, maybe use it for their retirment or the kid's college fund. People who have never worked a real job a day in their lives (we call them actors and media pundits) decide that they know what is best for a person, some of us red staters have a problem with that.
Time for another little lesson. Because you feel that way doesn't mean it's true. Generalization are worth nothing.

On a side note, if the guy have never worked in his life, you cannot truthfully call him an actor. You just lost all credibility right there in my eyes.

Authoritarianism isn't necessarily a bad thing. But I think you said this before in this thread . . . haven't you?

Anyway, if their "Lord" was omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient then I'd be pretty mad about being separated from him too.

Authoritarianism is bad. Authority should only lie on a flat level, when you add levels of hierarchy to it then you have problems. That is the great thing about America at one point. It was founded on an authoritative system not on authoritative people. The power was meant to reside in the people not in the government.

The thing with Christianity, though, is that much of it lies on one level, with people being more extensions of God than individual people.

i dont think the term liberal elitist applys to all liberals, just the extremely wealthy who are out of touch with the needs of society. someone could just as easily be called a conservative elitist.

My sentiments are that Politics shouldn't be able to exploit religion to gain a favor, and that the government should be on an authorative system, but not rely on authorative people.

Generalizations, huh?
The choice for President was between a traitor or a coward: give me the coward anyday with that choice(hence my vote for Bush).

Bush is a coward, Kerry is a traitor.

I am NOT a christian, nor would I want to be.

Im sick of the Liberial Republicans and the Socialist/Communist Democrates.
I'm a Conservative and hate both parties.

Socialist/Communist Democrats

Just as a reminder to those "educated liberials" it was the Republicans who freed the slaves and granted women and blacks the right to vote, while the Democrates tried to block these issues.

Republicans have always been conservative, democrats have always been liberal.

So much for your specialised "Educations"

And for Bible belt not helpping the poor, check again the average chairity donation to income ratio, Oklahoma gave more than New York and most ALL of New England.

Enjoy!

I don't know the statistics on this, but it sounds more like a stereotype against New Englanders.

I don't know the statistics on this, but it sounds more like a stereotype against New Englanders.

If anything, it is a good stereotype for people in Oklahoma. You just happen to be a pestimest.

On a side note, if the guy have never worked in his life, you cannot truthfully call him an actor. You just lost all credibility right there in my eyes.
I know, that was just weird. Acting is one of the most brutal professions out there. The reason the saleries are so high at the top is because your chances of getting there are slim to none, and at the bottom of the ladder its canned tuna and peas for the fifth time this week, no health insurance and performing a bad play in a Brooklyn basement theatre. Even Brad Pitt worked bit parts for $20 once. The only reason acting as a profession seems decadant is cos the big name actors so often seem so completely undeserving.

Your shitting me, right? I hope you are being sarcastic....

Nuclear Missiles are used for defence. Did the United States not use the Atomic Bomb in Hirroshima or Nagasaki in use of defence? I believe we were in time of war, thus bombing them was the only way to defend ourselves.

They were already bombing the rest of the entire country, the A-bomb was just the nail in the coffin. Though I admit I got that from "Fog of War" a move documentary.

I am just waiting for some innocent idiot to wander in this thread and say:

[QUOTE=Some Random Idiot] i h8 bush, didn't u guys see farehieght 9/11? [QUOTE]

They were already bombing the rest of the entire country, the A-bomb was just the nail in the coffin. Though I admit I got that from "Fog of War" a move documentary.

Still, bombs are used for defence, and there is no way around that.

Seems to me nuclear weapons probably prevented the US and USSR from waging a war that would have ruined Europe. So much for your theory.

That's one theory. I cannot disprove what I do not know. Also, weapons is a very GENERAL term so it could be interpreted in many ways. Hell a mickey mouse figurine could be a weapon.

Liberals have recieved the title of elitist by making threads/studies/whatever to try to show how much smarter/richer/cleaner/ect they are than conservatives.
Examples?
Time for a little lesson. When people go out and earn money on their own, they tend to want to keep it, maybe give some to their favorite charity, maybe use it for their retirment or the kid's college fund. People who have never worked a real job a day in their lives (we call them actors and media pundits) decide that they know what is best for a person, some of us red staters have a problem with that.
Are you really trying to say that everyone who has a job is conservative? Do you think that no liberals have "real jobs"?

You assume that actors and media pundits have it easy because you've never experienced their work. Most actors are not rich, and they work damn hard for what they get.

When red states stop absorbing most of the tax money, they can stop paying it. ;)

Look at it this way. When you red staters decide that you know which morals are best for a person, guess what? Some of them have a proble with it.

So who's the elitist now?

That's one theory. I cannot disprove what I do not know. Also, weapons is a very GENERAL term so it could be interpreted in many ways. Hell a mickey mouse figurine could be a weapon.

Touche. Well, really both of us are right, while no one wins this arguement. Weapons are mainly used for defence, while there would be no need for defence without weapons being used to harm.

Stop with the actors work hard thing people.

It's a blatant falsehood, and everyone who has ever had to deal with them knows it.

I don't know about media pundits.

liberals are "elitist" because it takes more than gut-feeling and hear-say
And yet, oddly enough, liberals are the crowd that advocates highly oppressive gun control laws, even though almost their entire argument is based upon fear mongering.

i love the fact that people think cable news is liberal. HYSTERICAL!

but why do southern conservatives think that we liberals are trying to ruin their culture. you guys drive around with confederate flags and say its about pride not the ideas.

now for something i know i will be quoted on constantly, if jesus were a U.S. citizen here today, he would be a liberal. ironic? i think so! positive? i am! right? of course!

i think that jesus would be disgusted that his teachings have been skewed and skewed again to make a right-wing point about why a group of people shouldn't have the same rights as others. that's not bringing a country together, that's dividing it.

anyone care to retort?

And yet, oddly enough, liberals are the crowd that advocates highly oppressive gun control laws, even though almost their entire argument is based upon fear mongering.
fear mongering? its a simple fact that if you dont have a gun, you cant shoot somebody.

And yet, oddly enough, liberals are the crowd that advocates highly oppressive gun control laws, even though almost their entire argument is based upon fear mongering.
NOT ALL LIBERALS HATE GUNS!!! It's just that the groups that do hate guns tend to side with the Democrats. People who hate guns tend to be liberal on other issues.

fear mongering? its a simple fact that if you dont have a gun, you cant shoot somebody.
And it's another simple fact that banning something just opens a black market.

fear mongering? its a simple fact that if you dont have a gun, you cant shoot somebody.
You can still run him over, blow him up, poison him, stab him, beat him to death, etc. Banning guns doesn't stop murder.

NOT ALL LIBERALS HATE GUNS!!! It's just that the groups that do hate guns tend to side with the Democrats. People who hate guns tend to be liberal on other issues.
This is true. I consider myself a liberal libertarian, whatever that means, and I'm fairly supportive of gun rights.

i don't see why people are against gun control. it's not a ban it just makes GUNOWNERS SAFER!

hehe i love how people in places like wisconsin seem to be more concerned about terrorists than people in d.c. (i live right outside of d.c.)

fear mongering? its a simple fact that if you dont have a gun, you cant shoot somebody.
Ah, but you assume that the only way to get a gun is to buy it legally. According to your logic I shouldn't be able to buy ecstasy anywhere because there isn't a legal supply. $20 says if I really wanted to I could find someone selling it. The problem literally ends up being that old cliche: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. They don't seem to have any problem aquiring them in chicago where guns are essentially illegal. Prohibition of any physical thing is almost a guarantee that the black market for it will grow in leaps and bounds.

It stems from the constant charge that anyone who votes Republican is a dumb-ass evangelical redneck. People who vote Republican and aren't part of any of those groups tend to feel that they're being pinned as morons. And people don't like that. Many liberal leaders tend to talk down to people as well.

Ah, but you assume that the only way to get a gun is to buy it legally. According to your logic I shouldn't be able to buy ecstasy anywhere because there isn't a legal supply. $20 says if I really wanted to I could find someone selling it. The problem literally ends up being that old cliche: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. They don't seem to have any problem aquiring them in chicago where guns are essentially illegal. Prohibition of any physical thing is almost a guarantee that the black market for it will grow in leaps and bounds.

the chances of being killed due to an outlaw with a gun is 40 times smaller than being killed ACCIDENTALLY by a gun in your own home. most outlaws BECOME outlaws when they get a gun. and if they aren't available at freaking sports authority there would probably be a lot less outlaws.

Ok, this isn't a gun control thread, but it's turning into one. I'm going to start a gun control thread, and anyone interested can post there. Let's leave this one to the discussion of whether liberals are elitist or not.

Ah, but you assume that the only way to get a gun is to buy it legally. According to your logic I shouldn't be able to buy ecstasy anywhere because there isn't a legal supply. $20 says if I really wanted to I could find someone selling it. The problem literally ends up being that old cliche: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. They don't seem to have any problem aquiring them in chicago where guns are essentially illegal. Prohibition of any physical thing is almost a guarantee that the black market for it will grow in leaps and bounds.
that is a good point. however, making guns illegal will, you concede, result in fewer members of the law-abiding public having guns. Only criminals will have guns because they will be able to aquire them illegaly. That is the situation we have in the UK.
Why then does the USA have many times more gun-related deaths per 1000 (i forget the figures) than the UK? If only outlaws had guns in the UK, and the law abiding public can be trusted with guns in the US, this should mean that the figures would be roughly the same - in both countries only outlaws will be using guns and thus shooting each other to roughly the same degree?
This is not so.
Surely this means, therefore, that the "law-abiding public" who 'only use guns for legal purposes' are shooting the shit out of each other (to coin a phrase). I say again, if guns were illegal, people would not be able to shoot each other.

Ok, this isn't a gun control thread, but it's turning into one. I'm going to start a gun control thread, and anyone interested can post there. Let's leave this one to the discussion of whether liberals are elitist or not.

If anything, it is a good stereotype for people in Oklahoma. You just happen to be a pestimest.

Good point.

I hardly consider liberals to be the only 1337|57z, or the least bit 1337. There are also conservative 1337|57z.

The truly 1337357 of the 1337 (or at least in terms of political beliefs) are libertarians

because knowing facts means your intelligent, being intelligent means you had an education, having an education means your smarter than their dumbasses, thus you are an elitist

Yea... I've loved this dichotomy... the party of the ultra rich is the party of the people... whilst the more liberal socially minded one is the party of the elite... makes total sense to me O_o

I guess the way to view it is... Bush appears to be massively mentally lacking whilst liberalism is something which on the whole comes with education...

they claim there elitist because liberals tend to have educations.education leads to the eventual understanding that blind faith leads only to intolerance and death.

yet they wish to force there morals on others,the definition of intolerance.

christian conservitives are hypocrits.jesus would vote blue.

you call someone en elitist when they make you feel inferior to them.

Conservatives feel inferior around liberals.

The thing is that conservatives DO have some things in common with the ordinary red state folks. They share a common beleif in religion, morality, and personal freedom. Unfortunately, their morality doesn't really extend to helping the poor and their idea of personal freedom doesn't include homosexuality, or personal decisions on drug use, religion, etc.

if alabama likes to own weapons of murder and be stupid, than that does mean that other americans and brits are better than them.


You shall find the answer within...

The liberal think tank in all its intellectual grandeur nominated a billionaire to represent the so called interests of the common man and thought they could sell this to the American public? That strategy made this dumbass redneck Christian conservative laugh. Time to get some religion democrats and you know it.

The liberal think tank in all its intellectual grandeur nominated a billionaire to represent the so called interests of the common man and thought they could sell this to the American public? That strategy made this dumbass redneck Christian conservative laugh. Time to get some religion democrats and you know it.
As opposed to the pauper the Republicans nominated :confused:

The liberal think tank in all its intellectual grandeur nominated a billionaire to represent the so called interests of the common man and thought they could sell this to the American public? That strategy made this dumbass redneck Christian conservative laugh. Time to get some religion democrats and you know it.

It worked with Bush. The democrats didn't invent a whole new image for Kerry though.

The way I look at it I would rather have a bonafide idiot in the White House like Bush than a pseudo-intellectual phony liberal lawyer that has to figure out what the definition of the word "is" is. At least a bonafide idiot has a 50% chance of getting it right.

The way I look at it I would rather have a bonafide idiot in the White House like Bush than a pseudo-intellectual phony liberal lawyer that has to figure out what the definition of the word "is" is. At least a bonafide idiot has a 50% chance of getting it right.
When was Kerry arguing about the definition of "is". Oh your making a reference about Clinton and Republicans say we are taking to long to get over Bush winning :rolleyes:

I constantly see people here equating liberalism with elitism. They think that liberals are elitists, and that somehow conservatism is the politics of we ordinary people.






I think you get the idea.

So conservatives, tell us why liberals are so "elitist".

The ideology of corporate conservatism has always seemed to me to be a system that was entirely beneficial to the rich only. So how is this not the elite ideology? Incertonia is right. Black is white. Up is down. Slavery is freedom.


Now you know why the US of america is in deep shit

Just pointing out how the so called superior education of the liberals makes them experts in lawyer speak.

because knowing facts means your intelligent, being intelligent means you had an education, having an education means your smarter than their dumbasses, thus you are an elitist

So what does using "your" when you should use "you're" mean. besides a failute to grasp basic grammar?

No, the problem with "elitists" is that they're people who THINK they are elite, but aren't.

As the saying goes: "People who think they're better than everyone else really annoy those of us who actually ARE." :p

The most socially progressive people in societies are almost always the educators and intellectuals. When they say elitists, at least the ones that actually know what they are saying, are referring to intellectual elites, not economic ones.

So you're saying smarter people vote Democratic... :)

The most socially progressive people in societies are almost always the educators and intellectuals. When they say elitists, at least the ones that actually know what they are saying, are referring to intellectual elites, not economic ones.

So you're saying smarter people vote Democratic... :)
Actually, according to Pew Research Center, 48% of liberal Democrats have college degrees--the most among any major group.

So you're saying smarter people vote Democratic... :)
Actually, according to Pew Research Center, 48% of liberal Democrats have college degrees--the most among any major group.

I'm saying liberal, not democrat. But the democrats just happen to represent most liberals at this point in time.

If you look back through history it is always the intellectually elite who have been the progressive ones. They have always pushed liberal ideas.

Right, like abolishing slavery...

Right, like abolishing slavery...

...Which was a liberal movement, to be sure.

So you're saying smarter people vote Democratic... :)
Actually, according to Pew Research Center, 48% of liberal Democrats have college degrees--the most among any major group.
Obviously doesn't speak very well for the current state of what passes for education, does it! :D