#1 2008-03-12 17:41:17
Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'
David Mamet
Those of us who are children of the 60's, or products of universities from any recent decade, have bought in to liberal ideology. Many of us, Mamet now included, now understand just how truely flawed are the underlying assumptions of that ideology. Do yourselves a favor and read the short version on page one. Now ask yourself the same questions he put to himself.
This doesn't mean I don't love you all. I'm simply trying to help you out of that ideological fog.
Kisses,
Phreddy
Offline
#2 2008-03-12 18:05:11
Wow. Waiting until he hit the age of 60 to engage in this bit of reflection shows he truly is brain-dead, whether liberal, conservative, or otherwise.
Fortunately for us, that doesn't disqualify him from creating some decent entertainment once in a while.
Offline
#3 2008-03-12 18:26:36
yeah I know what you mean square. I thought at first I was reading the reasoning from a 20 something college student struggling to make sense of engaging with the world.
What a tool.
Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-03-12 18:27:01)
Offline
#4 2008-03-12 18:45:34
Johnny_Rotten wrote:
yeah I know what you mean square. I thought at first I was reading the reasoning from a 20 something college student struggling to make sense of engaging with the world.
What a tool.
I have to agree with you. Aside from the fact that his prose made for tedious reading and had a Joyce-like stream of consciousness feel to it, sounds like he's just figured out what most of us figured out in our late 20s -- people are self-interested pigs. Now why that leads to the conclusion that liberalism is a flawed ideology is something he never managed to explain.
Offline
#5 2008-03-13 08:01:11
headkicker_girl wrote:
tedious reading
You got that right.
Phred, he is generating his own thick fog. Why in the world should anyone else care about his "awakening"? There is nothing clarifying here, nothing revelatory. Just nothing.
Offline
#6 2008-03-13 13:32:38
Fled wrote:
headkicker_girl wrote:
tedious reading
You got that right.
Phred, he is generating his own thick fog. Why in the world should anyone else care about his "awakening"? There is nothing clarifying here, nothing revelatory. Just nothing.
Out to pop Phwedd's justifying his own sad existence balloon are you? Shame!
Offline
#7 2008-03-13 14:27:52
*Yawn*
Offline
#8 2008-03-13 14:49:59
"You're a liberal!"
"No, YOU'RE a liberal!"
*fistfight*
Offline
#9 2008-03-13 17:20:27
Simply trying to add a little lucidity to the liberal's myopic (and Polyanna) view of the world.
Offline
#10 2008-03-13 17:24:18
phreddy wrote:
Simply trying to add a little lucidity to the liberal's myopic (and Polyanna) view of the world.
Not all liberals think alike. Are all conservatives Bible thumping half-wits like Rev. Phelps and his clan?
Mamet needs to get over himself. He couldn't even articulate his own thoughts in that article, let alone serve as the spokesperson for an entire political ideology.
Offline
#11 2008-03-13 17:49:06
Ahem, Phelps is a card carrying Democrat according to Fox news.
Offline
#12 2008-03-13 18:55:25
headkicker_girl wrote:
for an entire political ideology.
...that may or may not actually exist.
Offline
#13 2008-03-13 21:30:25
jesusluvspegging wrote:
headkicker_girl wrote:
for an entire political ideology.
...that may or may not actually exist.
Ding. My favorite thing about current partisian politics is that the ideology is just smoke and mirrors. Coopted as a cover for selling the snake oil of special interests by politicians and lobbiests with their hands in the cookie jar.
The ideology is just a moveable feast.
Offline
#14 2008-03-13 21:59:30
Johnny_Rotten wrote:
The ideology is just a moveable feast.
You should be picking a party to help based on how they align with your beliefs, not the other way around. Unless you're the founder of the party, there's probably something wrong if you disagree with everything they do. There isn't much that we as participants can do to apply negative reinforcement, we can usually only support those parts that we do agree with unless you're willing to give up a substantial portion of your life in order to try (and probably fail) to make a change.
Offline
#15 2008-03-13 22:30:20
tojo2000 wrote:
Johnny_Rotten wrote:
The ideology is just a moveable feast.
You should be picking a party to help based on how they align with your beliefs, not the other way around. Unless you're the founder of the party, there's probably something wrong if you disagree with everything they do. There isn't much that we as participants can do to apply negative reinforcement, we can usually only support those parts that we do agree with unless you're willing to give up a substantial portion of your life in order to try (and probably fail) to make a change.
Tojo,
That last line may not have been clear. I was not refering so much to the votors, rather that the ideology was moveable feast for those with a vested often financial interest. A particularly rich smorgasborg for for those getting a piece off the top of every bite the public swallows.
Offline
#16 2008-03-13 22:53:08
Johnny_Rotten wrote:
tojo2000 wrote:
Johnny_Rotten wrote:
The ideology is just a moveable feast.
You should be picking a party to help based on how they align with your beliefs, not the other way around. Unless you're the founder of the party, there's probably something wrong if you disagree with everything they do. There isn't much that we as participants can do to apply negative reinforcement, we can usually only support those parts that we do agree with unless you're willing to give up a substantial portion of your life in order to try (and probably fail) to make a change.
Tojo,
That last line may not have been clear. I was not refering so much to the votors, rather that the ideology was moveable feast for those with a vested often financial interest. A particularly rich smorgasborg for for those getting a piece off the top of every bite the public swallows.
No, that was my fault. I wanted to cut down on quote cruft and accidentally Dahlgrenized the quote.
Offline
