Share this comment
Fran, I have no problem calling out the democrats for their hypocrisy and lies, none whatsoever, and I applaud anyone for doing so. But just as I oppose only focusing on Republican (Trumpism, etc) to the exclusion of almost all else, and lying about it at times as well, I also oppose doing the same approach with Dems and "liberals" (a te…
Fran, I have no problem calling out the democrats for their hypocrisy and lies, none whatsoever, and I applaud anyone for doing so. But just as I oppose only focusing on Republican (Trumpism, etc) to the exclusion of almost all else, and lying about it at times as well, I also oppose doing the same approach with Dems and "liberals" (a term Greenwald NEVER defines and uses to paint absolutes). I'm for putting things in a more holistic perspective, not being a monomaniac like Greenwald has become.
John, trust me he's liberal, and no monomaniac, and I think he's fair and balanced. In this article he pointed out the hypocrisy of the democrat's position on the filibuster when used by republicans, but at the same time he agreed that Russia and Germany should be left to their own decisions about the pipeline and oil. The article also pointed out that while the democrats claimed Trump was Putin's puppet he tried to sabotage this pipeline which is economically extremely important to Russia, contradicting the democrat's allegation that he was doing Putin's bidding during his time in office. However that certainly doesn't mean he has nothing but good feelings for the republicans. People complain he's on FOX, real liberal of them, and to be honest during the Trump presidency I turned to FOX too, because they weren't spinning lies about Trump and Russia-gate, or his hiring prostitutes to pee on the bed Obama and his wife slept on in Russia. Those 4 years were crazy and someone has to sort it out, so to speak.
P.S. Hard to define the word liberal in today's day and age, especially when liberals have become so dogmatic in what you should and shouldn't believe.
Agreed, but regarding your P.S., that's a group - the dogmatic, authoritarian ones, who we call Neo-Liberals to distinguish them.
Whom, not who. (tee hee.)
Neo-liberalism like Obama pushing TPP and Trump was against it.?
Hmmm... Surely Obama's a Neo-Liberal, as is Clinton, Biden et al. However I'm not sure what your point is about the TPP. It was a horrific idea, giving huge power to corporations literally over national governments. One great thing Trump did was end the TPP.
Exactly and my point was that Trump didn't like it, liberals didn't like it, but the so called liberal droner and chief really pushed it. Boy have they used Trump to cover their asses, and even Cheney with all that blood and torture on his hands has gotten a pass.
I agree again! (What is happening to me...)
Why does he have to define "liberals?" I don't understand that argument, I think we all know what it means. It might be a generalization in a way but so is saying "conservative, "democrat, republican, the main stream media." It's a group of people with similar ideas and values, and we all know what those ideas and values are. Obviously not all of them think exactly alike. But I don't understand why it's Glenns job to narrowly define a term that we all understand to be a description, not an absolute. I think his readers have enough brain power to understand that.
Liberal isn't one he routinely gets wrong, it's "left," and second behind that is "Progressive." For the most part when he uses those terms he doesn't mean those groups at all, but rather the Neo-Liberals who have in recent times begun to call themselves that while holding none of the beliefs.
Yes, he does use "left" a lot, too. I think he should clarify what he means, not leave it up to the reader.
Yes, or just use the more specific term.
Really? LOL Your define is pretty vague, isn't it? Please tell me what "those ideas and values are," ok? Phil Ochs explained his definition of liberal pretty well, at least for a song, but I have no idea what Glenn's or your definition means because you both use the word in such a sweeping fashion. The best I can figure is from what he says is that liberals are Democrats, because he uses the words interchangeably. But are all Dems the same? Are all liberals the same? Or are they vastly different (remember, Glenn usually speaks in absolutes). Is Rachael Maddow, one of Glenn's most justifiable targets, a liberal? She's probably a Democrat, but I sure don't consider her a liberal (ask me for my definition and I will give it to you, if you want). I don't care how he defines it, except that I need to know what he's talking about. There are, you should know, different definitions of lots of political and philosophical terms, most especially "liberal." Vague writing is bad writing.
Let's distinguish between collectivists and individualist.
Individualists support the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
Collectivists are socialist and Communists and fascists (corporatists) and Nazis.
\\][//
Almost but not quite. Some of us are Individualists that also support limited collectivism when voluntary and at a local level...Part of the problem is designating things in such opposing terms. Humanity did not rise above nature without group cooperation, this is a fact. At the same time there must be integrity of the individual and his or her rights.
I apologize, I was not making myself clear. I was not trying to define the word liberal, though I can see why you would assume that I was. I'm not a skilled writer. What I was trying to say is that the meanings of words change and evolve over time. My point is to say that it will have a different meaning depending on the context of the writing. I don't agree that "Glenn speaks in absolutes." That's a pretty broad statement that seems like it would be difficult to back up with evidence. I always understand the meanings of his words in terms of the context of the writing. In my opinion, it's not necessary to have a strict definition of a political/philosophical term when you have context and when you're speaking to an audience familiar with current political and societal events. It's a weak criticism.
You are right that the [popular] meaning of words changes overtime, all the more important to make sure that people know what you're talking about. And I would add that it can occur to the point that words can lose any specific meaning other than being used as a scapegoat tool for demagogues, like calling people a "witch." I strongly disagree with your conclusion that Glenn doesn't speak in absolutes. In fact, he does it much of the time and using undefined words as he does is part of that process.
Right, I can see your point about precision of language. I can also see how he speaks in absolutes regarding certain values, like freedom of speech and due process in particular. I guess I don't see that as a negative, but I take your point.
I support the right to tell lies as part of free speech, too, except as narrowly defined by libel and slander laws; but, I think it's still ethically wrong for a journalist to do that, even in the supposed defense of free speech and due process, which is sort of an oxymoron, right? I also support the right to speak or write in absolutes and engage in other logical and factual fallacies, so carry on by all means.
Here, the historical meanings are provided, and it includes a walk through to modern times as well:
http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
The Troy Press is opinion, not fact. One opinion out of a myriad of them.
Left and Right is derived from the Hegelian Dialectic. It is metaphysics, like all of Hegel's conceptualizations.
Hegel greatly influenced Marx and Engels, who transferred much of his thought into their Manifesto.
There is no such thing as authentic Left and Right. There is only right and wrong.
Individualism is right, and collectivism is wrong.
Individualism is derived and expounded in the Declaration of Independence. Collectivism is derived and expounded in the Marxist Manifesto.
Collectivism is totalitarian. Individualism is republican.
So let us speak plainly now, for the hour is getting late.
\\][//
Self-referral to claim proof?
It saves a lot of typing.
Good one! (Sorry, M. Art, i just saw this.)
Thanks for the link. I look forward to reading through it. Which reminds me that there is a standard definition of words and then the intended definition by their users; so, what does <Glenn> mean, etc.
YVW.