What are Liberals trying to Liberalize?

[Dragon]

I am doing no such thing.

If liberty can mean the greatest liberty of the greatest number, rather than some sort of absolute and inseverable relationship between each individual and the government, insulated from all other considerations, then you have been answered. If not, then what I said is exactly what you are doing.

Mr. Shaman, the kind hearted troll, was quick to post a definition.

Sorry, I tend to scroll past Mr. Shaman's posts as he rarely says anything of substance, so I didn't see is definition. I am happy to define "liberalism" as a political philosophy that seeks the liberty of the common person. That definition fits all liberals, "classical" and modern alike.

 

[Liberty]

With that definition, what part of modern liberal ideology supports said definition? When has a liberal actively sought repealing of an economic regulation that unjustly hurt economic liberty? Example: FDA attacking those who sell milk over state lines? Or requirements for permits for 5 year olds to have a lemonade stand? Being against these things sounds inherently liberal yet liberals are absence on the issues of liberty in economics, for example.

 

[bobcollum]

Yeah, it's easy to point the finger...but can you tell me what Conservatives are trying to conserve, and how you expect improvement out of the front-running neo-con corporate cronies?

Bet you can't...

Just curious, you seem to give off the illusion that you're all knowing.

The Tea party comes instantly to mind.

But I suppose you will want to sidetrack that with some of the things individual chapters have come out for.

What exactly is the Tea Party doing? Their elected representatives still for the most part tow the line with regards to general Republican policy, and any potential front-runner for Republican nominee seems to be pretty far from the supposed Libertarian-esque views of the Tea Party.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Since the father of liberalism, John Locke, wrote his famous treatise on government (and the second one which is more famous), the term liberal had its root word "lib" which is short for "liber," or "liberty" which is defined as, "free." So...how is a liberal today in any way associated with promoting liberty? Seems to me unless it has something to do with homosexuality the liberal will always prefer to create laws and regulation, which are inherent in their definition a means to remove liberty, more than they are concerned with repealing unnecessary laws and regulation that remove liberty. How odd.

This is your OP. Why would anyone who desires a serious discussion.....who in fact DEMANDS such........think that a dumb opening post like this would get him anywhere?

You want to learn what makes a modern liberal tick? Try harder.

 

[Foxfyre]

The concept of big government creep was first discernable in the Teddy Roosevelt administration and began then as a tiny, seemingly inconsequential snowball that was started rolling slowly down hill. It steadily gained size and momentum from that point as subsequent Presidents added to it, but for decades it remained small enough to not be seen as a problem.

Finally in the 1960's, Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" gave the snowball a huge shove and it was noticable. But within the phenomenon of the Vietnam War inspired anti-cultural revolution of the sixties, it was the elephant in the room that was not mentioned in polite company.

The anti-cultural revolution, driven by drugs and booze, inspired large numbers of people to zone out, drop out, and reject, even despise, the great American institutions and values that made us the greatest nation the world has ever known. God, church, marriage, personal responsibility and accountability, all by various degrees were rejected, minimalized, marginalized, and rejected as essential to a stable society and were replaced by an anti-establishment 'me first' mentality. And modern American liberalism was born.

In time these anti-culture rebels would return to the mainstream. But their way of thinking and attitude had been mostly changed forever,

And now those anti-cultural revolutionaries of the 60's control our largest corporations, Wall Street, most of the media, most of public education, and most of all aspects of our government from the federal level down to city hall. The public servant largely no longer exists--cannot be elected in most places actually--and has largely been replaced by the professional politician whose No. 1 goal is to get elected and/or stay in office and use the people's money to increase his/her power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

And because the culture and education and the media has so long been largely controlled by this same group, too many of our people have been indoctrinated instead of educated. They have been conditioned to believe that if government doesn't do 'good', then no good will be done. They have been taught and honestly believe that most of America was a horrible place before government forced it to be better,. They are incapable of seeing the elephant in the room which is that aspect of government that is destructive, demeaning, and counter productive.

They honestly think they mean well. They honestly believe that the government is more benevolent and honorable than anything the private sector will do. They honestly don't see how modern liberalism has become more restrictive and more authoritarian and more freedom destroying than anything that existed before.

We won't be able to just use the ballot box to begin correcting the damage that has been done. It has to be all of us who can still see clearly and think critically who will have to change hearts and minds.

 

[Liberty]

Since the father of liberalism, John Locke, wrote his famous treatise on government (and the second one which is more famous), the term liberal had its root word "lib" which is short for "liber," or "liberty" which is defined as, "free." So...how is a liberal today in any way associated with promoting liberty? Seems to me unless it has something to do with homosexuality the liberal will always prefer to create laws and regulation, which are inherent in their definition a means to remove liberty, more than they are concerned with repealing unnecessary laws and regulation that remove liberty. How odd.

This is your OP. Why would anyone who desires a serious discussion.....who in fact DEMANDS such........think that a dumb opening post like this would get him anywhere?

You want to learn what makes a modern liberal tick? Try harder.

It's actually objective fact as per history and linguistics. Thanks anyway.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm sorry.............but I've got to do this.

The concept of big government creep was first discernable in the Teddy Roosevelt administration and began then as a tiny, seemingly inconsequential snowball that was started rolling slowly down hill. It steadily gained size and momentum from that point as subsequent Presidents added to it, but for decades it remained small enough to not be seen as a problem.

This analogy requires some benchmarks, don't you think? A tiny snowball grows into one that was not seen as a problem? By who? Were all American's caught unaware?

Finally in the 1960's, Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" gave the snowball a huge shove and it was noticable. But within the phenomenon of the Vietnam War inspired anti-cultural revolution of the sixties, it was the elephant in the room that was not mentioned in polite company.

Finally? My goodness. Not mentioned in polite company? What are you talking about?

The anti-cultural revolution, driven by drugs and booze, inspired large numbers of people to zone out, drop out, and reject, even despise, the great American institutions and values that made us the greatest nation the world has ever known. God, church, marriage, personal responsibility and accountability, all by various degrees were rejected, minimalized, marginalized, and rejected as essential to a stable society and were replaced by an anti-establishment 'me first' mentality. And modern American liberalism was born.

My oh my. What a load of crap. How in the world did this nation survive? And......assigning the "me first" mentality to liberals is about as disingenuous as it can get. Ask any Rand disciple.

In time these anti-culture rebels would return to the mainstream. But their way of thinking and attitude had been mostly changed forever,

What? Have they returned or haven't they?

And now those anti-cultural revolutionaries of the 60's control our largest corporations, Wall Street, most of the media, most of public education, and most of all aspects of our government from the federal level down to city hall. The public servant largely no longer exists--cannot be elected in most places actually--and has largely been replaced by the professional politician whose No. 1 goal is to get elected and/or stay in office and use the people's money to increase his/her power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

You shook all those words up in a cup and dumped them out on a table......and that is what you got. The lazy, drug addicted losers who hate personal responsibility are now leading America's corporations? Is that what you have just said?

And because the culture and education and the media has so long been largely controlled by this same group, too many of our people have been indoctrinated instead of educated. They have been conditioned to believe that if government doesn't do 'good', then no good will be done. They have been taught and honestly believe that most of America was a horrible place before government forced it to be better,. They are incapable of seeing the elephant in the room which is that aspect of government that is destructive, demeaning, and counter productive.

Incapable? But somehow YOU are capable? How did that happen?

They honestly think they mean well. They honestly believe that the government is more benevolent and honorable than anything the private sector will do. They honestly don't see how modern liberalism has become more restrictive and more authoritarian and more freedom destroying than anything that existed before.

Because it hasn't. And the difference between the private sector squeezing my balls and the public sector squeezing my balls.....is that I get to VOTE for one of them. The private sector is consumed with profit.....and it will squeeze harder.

We won't be able to just use the ballot box to begin correcting the damage that has been done. It has to be all of us who can still see clearly and think critically who will have to change hearts and minds.

Oh wow........please..guide us for we cannot see clearly! Talk about arrogance.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Since the father of liberalism, John Locke, wrote his famous treatise on government (and the second one which is more famous), the term liberal had its root word "lib" which is short for "liber," or "liberty" which is defined as, "free." So...how is a liberal today in any way associated with promoting liberty? Seems to me unless it has something to do with homosexuality the liberal will always prefer to create laws and regulation, which are inherent in their definition a means to remove liberty, more than they are concerned with repealing unnecessary laws and regulation that remove liberty. How odd.

This is your OP. Why would anyone who desires a serious discussion.....who in fact DEMANDS such........think that a dumb opening post like this would get him anywhere?

You want to learn what makes a modern liberal tick? Try harder.

It's actually objective fact as per history and linguistics. Thanks anyway.

Really? That is what you are gonna go with?

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sorry.............but I've got to do this.

The concept of big government creep was first discernable in the Teddy Roosevelt administration and began then as a tiny, seemingly inconsequential snowball that was started rolling slowly down hill. It steadily gained size and momentum from that point as subsequent Presidents added to it, but for decades it remained small enough to not be seen as a problem.

This analogy requires some benchmarks, don't you think? A tiny snowball grows into one that was not seen as a problem? By who? Were all American's caught unaware?

Finally in the 1960's, Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" gave the snowball a huge shove and it was noticable. But within the phenomenon of the Vietnam War inspired anti-cultural revolution of the sixties, it was the elephant in the room that was not mentioned in polite company.

Finally? My goodness. Not mentioned in polite company? What are you talking about?

The anti-cultural revolution, driven by drugs and booze, inspired large numbers of people to zone out, drop out, and reject, even despise, the great American institutions and values that made us the greatest nation the world has ever known. God, church, marriage, personal responsibility and accountability, all by various degrees were rejected, minimalized, marginalized, and rejected as essential to a stable society and were replaced by an anti-establishment 'me first' mentality. And modern American liberalism was born.

My oh my. What a load of crap. How in the world did this nation survive? And......assigning the "me first" mentality to liberals is about as disingenuous as it can get. Ask any Rand disciple.

In time these anti-culture rebels would return to the mainstream. But their way of thinking and attitude had been mostly changed forever,

What? Have they returned or haven't they?

And now those anti-cultural revolutionaries of the 60's control our largest corporations, Wall Street, most of the media, most of public education, and most of all aspects of our government from the federal level down to city hall. The public servant largely no longer exists--cannot be elected in most places actually--and has largely been replaced by the professional politician whose No. 1 goal is to get elected and/or stay in office and use the people's money to increase his/her power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

You shook all those words up in a cup and dumped them out on a table......and that is what you got. The lazy, drug addicted losers who hate personal responsibility are now leading America's corporations? Is that what you have just said?

And because the culture and education and the media has so long been largely controlled by this same group, too many of our people have been indoctrinated instead of educated. They have been conditioned to believe that if government doesn't do 'good', then no good will be done. They have been taught and honestly believe that most of America was a horrible place before government forced it to be better,. They are incapable of seeing the elephant in the room which is that aspect of government that is destructive, demeaning, and counter productive.

Incapable? But somehow YOU are capable? How did that happen?

They honestly think they mean well. They honestly believe that the government is more benevolent and honorable than anything the private sector will do. They honestly don't see how modern liberalism has become more restrictive and more authoritarian and more freedom destroying than anything that existed before.

Because it hasn't. And the difference between the private sector squeezing my balls and the public sector squeezing my balls.....is that I get to VOTE for one of them. The private sector is consumed with profit.....and it will squeeze harder.

We won't be able to just use the ballot box to begin correcting the damage that has been done. It has to be all of us who can still see clearly and think critically who will have to change hearts and minds.

Oh wow........please..guide us for we cannot see clearly! Talk about arrogance.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is all the evidence you need to verify the validity of my opinion expressed in my previous post.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm sorry.............but I've got to do this.

The concept of big government creep was first discernable in the Teddy Roosevelt administration and began then as a tiny, seemingly inconsequential snowball that was started rolling slowly down hill. It steadily gained size and momentum from that point as subsequent Presidents added to it, but for decades it remained small enough to not be seen as a problem.

This analogy requires some benchmarks, don't you think? A tiny snowball grows into one that was not seen as a problem? By who? Were all American's caught unaware?

Finally in the 1960's, Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" gave the snowball a huge shove and it was noticable. But within the phenomenon of the Vietnam War inspired anti-cultural revolution of the sixties, it was the elephant in the room that was not mentioned in polite company.

Finally? My goodness. Not mentioned in polite company? What are you talking about?

The anti-cultural revolution, driven by drugs and booze, inspired large numbers of people to zone out, drop out, and reject, even despise, the great American institutions and values that made us the greatest nation the world has ever known. God, church, marriage, personal responsibility and accountability, all by various degrees were rejected, minimalized, marginalized, and rejected as essential to a stable society and were replaced by an anti-establishment 'me first' mentality. And modern American liberalism was born.

My oh my. What a load of crap. How in the world did this nation survive? And......assigning the "me first" mentality to liberals is about as disingenuous as it can get. Ask any Rand disciple.

In time these anti-culture rebels would return to the mainstream. But their way of thinking and attitude had been mostly changed forever,

What? Have they returned or haven't they?

And now those anti-cultural revolutionaries of the 60's control our largest corporations, Wall Street, most of the media, most of public education, and most of all aspects of our government from the federal level down to city hall. The public servant largely no longer exists--cannot be elected in most places actually--and has largely been replaced by the professional politician whose No. 1 goal is to get elected and/or stay in office and use the people's money to increase his/her power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

You shook all those words up in a cup and dumped them out on a table......and that is what you got. The lazy, drug addicted losers who hate personal responsibility are now leading America's corporations? Is that what you have just said?

And because the culture and education and the media has so long been largely controlled by this same group, too many of our people have been indoctrinated instead of educated. They have been conditioned to believe that if government doesn't do 'good', then no good will be done. They have been taught and honestly believe that most of America was a horrible place before government forced it to be better,. They are incapable of seeing the elephant in the room which is that aspect of government that is destructive, demeaning, and counter productive.

Incapable? But somehow YOU are capable? How did that happen?

They honestly think they mean well. They honestly believe that the government is more benevolent and honorable than anything the private sector will do. They honestly don't see how modern liberalism has become more restrictive and more authoritarian and more freedom destroying than anything that existed before.

Because it hasn't. And the difference between the private sector squeezing my balls and the public sector squeezing my balls.....is that I get to VOTE for one of them. The private sector is consumed with profit.....and it will squeeze harder.

We won't be able to just use the ballot box to begin correcting the damage that has been done. It has to be all of us who can still see clearly and think critically who will have to change hearts and minds.

Oh wow........please..guide us for we cannot see clearly! Talk about arrogance.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is all the evidence you need to verify the validity of my opinion expressed in my previous post.

Really? I disagreed with you.......and that "verifies the validity of your opinion"?

That is outstanding.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How about answering the questions that I asked about your post?

 

[Dragon]

With that definition, what part of modern liberal ideology supports said definition? When has a liberal actively sought repealing of an economic regulation that unjustly hurt economic liberty?

You seem to have ignored four important words from the definition I presented: "of the common person." Economic regulations are generally designed to hinder the freedom of corporations to do things that HURT the liberty of the common person. (Not saying they are invariably effective at that purpose, but that's what they're for.)

There are far more important issues that the two or three you mentioned, such as the high cost of education, the fact that many people can't get health-care coverage or afford it when they can, and the decline in real wages, all of which hurt the opportunities, property, or options of far more people than the few small-scale dairy farmers who want to sell milk across state lines. If you ask me whether I think those particular regulations are misapplied in the particular cases, I'll say yes, they are. If you ask if I think that means we should deep-six EPA or FDA regulations altogether, I'll say get real. And if you ask whether that's the most burning issue on our plates right now, I'll look at you like you're crazy.

 

[Foxfyre]

How about answering the questions that I asked about your post?

I would have answered any reasonable question asked if you had offered anything other than combative questions or just making fun of or ridiculing or distorting what I posted. But most liberals don't articulate why they disagree or offer reasoned rebuttal do they? And that is aside from your ad hominem remarks. Your response was not a disagreement or a rebuttal but just an expression of contempt.

Which takes us back to the thesis of the OP: What are liberals trying to liberalize? My response was to illustrate that modern American liberals are not seeking liberty but rather seek control of the entire system along with my (I believe informed) opinion of how we got to that point. The result was a current culture of folks who have been conditioned to be incapable of seeing how their ideology is antithesis to liberty instead of promoting it. Your response reinforced my opinion big time.

Agree or disagree. That's what a good discussion is all about.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How about answering the questions that I asked about your post?

I would have answered any reasonable question asked if you had offered anything other than combative questions or just making fun of or ridiculing or distorting what I posted. But most liberals don't articulate why they disagree or offer reasoned rebuttal do they? And that is aside from your ad hominem remarks. Your response was not a disagreement or a rebuttal but just an expression of contempt.

Which takes us back to the thesis of the OP: What are liberals trying to liberalize? My response was to illustrate that modern American liberals are not seeking liberty but rather seek control of the entire system along with my (I believe informed) opinion of how we got to that point. The result was a current culture of folks who have been conditioned to be incapable of seeing how their ideology is antithesis to liberty instead of promoting it. Your response reinforced my opinion big time.

Agree or disagree. That's what a good discussion is all about.

Can you kindly provide some evidence that supports those claims? Maybe some examples that illustrate what you are claiming? Please do not direct me to your previous post as it contained no evidence nor examples.

If I were to attempt to counter every false, unsubstantiated, fabricated or simply misunderstood claim that "conservatives" here have made about what "modern liberals" think and desire, I wouldn't have time to do anything else.

The idea that liberals are somehow being hoodwinked by the government and will wake up some years from now enslaved and wondering what happened is just dumb. The idea that we all are driven by the desire to get free stuff and will gladly trade votes for said free stuff is insulting. The inference that you have, via some ability to discern fact from fiction that I do not possess, escaped with your wits about you and have set out to save me from myself is arrogance defined.

I generally avoid talking about myself as it usually seems lame to when people do that. But I will say this and fully expect you to take me at my word. I have an extremely refined bullshit detector. It is not possible to "condition" me. Period.

 

[Foxfyre]

How about answering the questions that I asked about your post?

I would have answered any reasonable question asked if you had offered anything other than combative questions or just making fun of or ridiculing or distorting what I posted. But most liberals don't articulate why they disagree or offer reasoned rebuttal do they? And that is aside from your ad hominem remarks. Your response was not a disagreement or a rebuttal but just an expression of contempt.

Which takes us back to the thesis of the OP: What are liberals trying to liberalize? My response was to illustrate that modern American liberals are not seeking liberty but rather seek control of the entire system along with my (I believe informed) opinion of how we got to that point. The result was a current culture of folks who have been conditioned to be incapable of seeing how their ideology is antithesis to liberty instead of promoting it. Your response reinforced my opinion big time.

Agree or disagree. That's what a good discussion is all about.

Can you kindly provide some evidence that supports those claims? Maybe some examples that illustrate what you are claiming? Please do not direct me to your previous post as it contained no evidence nor examples.

If I were to attempt to counter every false, unsubstantiated, fabricated or simply misunderstood claim that "conservatives" here have made about what "modern liberals" think and desire, I wouldn't have time to do anything else.

The idea that liberals are somehow being hoodwinked by the government and will wake up some years from now enslaved and wondering what happened is just dumb. The idea that we all are driven by the desire to get free stuff and will gladly trade votes for said free stuff is insulting. The inference that you have, via some ability to discern fact from fiction that I do not possess, escaped with your wits about you and have set out to save me from myself is arrogance defined.

I generally avoid talking about myself as it usually seems lame to when people do that. But I will say this and fully expect you to take me at my word. I have an extremely refined bullshit detector. It is not possible to "condition" me. Period.

I have been reading, studying, speaking on, and commenting on the rise of the new American liberalism for more than four decades now. And whenever somebody attempts to read some absurd notion or statement into my remarks that I did not say and that any normal person would know that I did not intend, as you have done in every post you have directed to me here, I take that quite personally. Nor am I easily dragged off course by straw men and red herrings thrown into the mix.

And if you cannot address my remarks with anything better than "that isn't true or that';s bullshit" or better, why should I take my time to 'defend my remarks'? I would refer you, however, to writings of scholars such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Starr Parker, Shelby Steele, and others, all dedicated historians as well as some being PhD economists, who have done exhaustive research on the phenomenon of the rise of modern American liberalism and the effect that has had on American society.

Here's just some of Sowell's books you can start with:

A CONFLICT OF VISIONS
INTELLECTUALS AND SOCIETY
ON CLASSICAL ECONOMICS
THE QUEST FOR COSMIC JUSTICE
THE VISION OF THE ANOINTED
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AROUND THE WORLD
BLACK REDNECKS AND WHITE LIBERALS
CIVIL RIGHTS: RHETORIC OR REALITY?
ECONOMIC AND POLITICS OF RACE
ETHNIC AMERICA
TRILOGY

None of them are large volumes and none are difficult reading. Probably several are available at your local library.

 

[Liberty]

How about answering the questions that I asked about your post?

Fuck you. You ignore the topic at hand and demand someone answer you? You sure are full of yourself, buddy.

 

[Liberty]

With that definition, what part of modern liberal ideology supports said definition? When has a liberal actively sought repealing of an economic regulation that unjustly hurt economic liberty?

You seem to have ignored four important words from the definition I presented: "of the common person." Economic regulations are generally designed to hinder the freedom of corporations to do things that HURT the liberty of the common person. (Not saying they are invariably effective at that purpose, but that's what they're for.)

There are far more important issues that the two or three you mentioned, such as the high cost of education, the fact that many people can't get health-care coverage or afford it when they can, and the decline in real wages, all of which hurt the opportunities, property, or options of far more people than the few small-scale dairy farmers who want to sell milk across state lines. If you ask me whether I think those particular regulations are misapplied in the particular cases, I'll say yes, they are. If you ask if I think that means we should deep-six EPA or FDA regulations altogether, I'll say get real. And if you ask whether that's the most burning issue on our plates right now, I'll look at you like you're crazy.

so imposing laws on one class in order to preserve, protect, or reward another class is considered liberal? Sounds more like Communism.

 

[Liberty]

A liberal: "Can you prove that liberals want to take control?"
Me: "Does a bear shit in the woods?"

Seriously...lonelaughter you are taking this thread offtopic and I will not have it derailed until I receive some sort of an intelligent address on the issue. Liberals seek liberty. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A LIBERAL. So what is a modern liberal doing to promote liberty? Spill it on me. Give me one congressional member who is considered to have "liberal" views that demonstrate a desire to promote liberty. Anything.

 

[The T]

A liberal: "Can you prove that liberals want to take control?"
Me: "Does a bear shit in the woods?"

Seriously...lonelaughter you are taking this thread offtopic and I will not have it derailed until I receive some sort of an intelligent address on the issue. Liberals seek liberty. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A LIBERAL. So what is a modern liberal doing to promote liberty? Spill it on me.

Not to wreck your thread or anything? But my friend? 'Modern Liberals' are Statists. Liberal would portend Liberty of the individual.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I would have answered any reasonable question asked if you had offered anything other than combative questions or just making fun of or ridiculing or distorting what I posted. But most liberals don't articulate why they disagree or offer reasoned rebuttal do they? And that is aside from your ad hominem remarks. Your response was not a disagreement or a rebuttal but just an expression of contempt.

Which takes us back to the thesis of the OP: What are liberals trying to liberalize? My response was to illustrate that modern American liberals are not seeking liberty but rather seek control of the entire system along with my (I believe informed) opinion of how we got to that point. The result was a current culture of folks who have been conditioned to be incapable of seeing how their ideology is antithesis to liberty instead of promoting it. Your response reinforced my opinion big time.

Agree or disagree. That's what a good discussion is all about.

Can you kindly provide some evidence that supports those claims? Maybe some examples that illustrate what you are claiming? Please do not direct me to your previous post as it contained no evidence nor examples.

If I were to attempt to counter every false, unsubstantiated, fabricated or simply misunderstood claim that "conservatives" here have made about what "modern liberals" think and desire, I wouldn't have time to do anything else.

The idea that liberals are somehow being hoodwinked by the government and will wake up some years from now enslaved and wondering what happened is just dumb. The idea that we all are driven by the desire to get free stuff and will gladly trade votes for said free stuff is insulting. The inference that you have, via some ability to discern fact from fiction that I do not possess, escaped with your wits about you and have set out to save me from myself is arrogance defined.

I generally avoid talking about myself as it usually seems lame to when people do that. But I will say this and fully expect you to take me at my word. I have an extremely refined bullshit detector. It is not possible to "condition" me. Period.

I have been reading, studying, speaking on, and commenting on the rise of the new American liberalism for more than four decades now. And whenever somebody attempts to read some absurd notion or statement into my remarks that I did not say and that any normal person would know that I did not intend, as you have done in every post you have directed to me here, I take that quite personally. Nor am I easily dragged off course by straw men and red herrings thrown into the mix.

And if you cannot address my remarks with anything better than "that isn't true or that';s bullshit" or better, why should I take my time to 'defend my remarks'? I would refer you, however, to writings of scholars such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Starr Parker, Shelby Steele, and others, all dedicated historians as well as some being PhD economists, who have done exhaustive research on the phenomenon of the rise of modern American liberalism and the effect that has had on American society.

Here's just some of Sowell's books you can start with:

A CONFLICT OF VISIONS
INTELLECTUALS AND SOCIETY
ON CLASSICAL ECONOMICS
THE QUEST FOR COSMIC JUSTICE
THE VISION OF THE ANOINTED
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AROUND THE WORLD
BLACK REDNECKS AND WHITE LIBERALS
CIVIL RIGHTS: RHETORIC OR REALITY?
ECONOMIC AND POLITICS OF RACE
ETHNIC AMERICA
TRILOGY

None of them are large volumes and none are difficult reading. Probably several are available at your local library.

A reading list. Great!

My interest is piqued. I would like to know if your first entry in this thread is the culmination of all of your years of study. If that commentary forms the basis for speeches that others will pay to hear, I am going to look into getting some speaking engagements.

How about responding to my request with something better than a reading list.