The Sinister Liberal Agenda....

[Ana the Ist]

What is it? I mean this in all seriousness. I consider myself a moderate, having many liberal views on domestic policy and many conservative views on foreign policy. I keep hearing pundits and posters alike speak about a "liberal agenda" or even a "progressive agenda". I don't know if these are the same, different, or whether they overlap in some way because I don't know what these agendas entail.

Example: An associated press story contains some information that conservatives disagree with and I hear a conservative say, "See? This is proof the media is part of the liberal agenda!". I never actually hear what the so-called agenda is. Please reply with a detailed description of the agenda...not some vague answer like, "Everything Obama has done since being elected." That kind of answer isn't useful at all. Thank you!

 

[GarfieldJL]

What is it? I mean this in all seriousness. I consider myself a moderate, having many liberal views on domestic policy and many conservative views on foreign policy. I keep hearing pundits and posters alike speak about a "liberal agenda" or even a "progressive agenda". I don't know if these are the same, different, or whether they overlap in some way because I don't know what these agendas entail.

Example: An associated press story contains some information that conservatives disagree with and I hear a conservative say, "See? This is proof the media is part of the liberal agenda!". I never actually hear what the so-called agenda is. Please reply with a detailed description of the agenda...not some vague answer like, "Everything Obama has done since being elected." That kind of answer isn't useful at all. Thank you!

Read The Great Destroyer by David Limbaugh, considering one can write whole books on this topic...

Another good book would be Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg.

You could also try Sean Hannity's book Let Freedom Ring, I actually went through the book and cross-referenced the sources he used myself because I couldn't believe what he was saying at first, I came up with the more scary conclusion (that he was understating things). You won't be able to crossreference some sources anymore because some of the Newspapers he used have gone under in the past 2 to 3 years.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Read The Great Destroyer by David Limbaugh, considering one can write whole books on this topic...

Another good book would be Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg.

You could also try Sean Hannity's book Let Freedom Ring, I actually went through the book and cross-referenced the sources he used myself because I couldn't believe what he was saying at first, I came up with the more scary conclusion (that he was understating things). You won't be able to crossreference some sources anymore because some of the Newspapers he used have gone under in the past 2 to 3 years.

So...three political commentators...one who used to be a journalist. I'm afraid I'm not likely to read any of these books since, as political commentators and authors, they have a vested interest in exaggeration and lies, and that interest is selling more books. Is it possible you could just give me some details? Even a synopsis?

 

[GarfieldJL]

So...three political commentators...one who used to be a journalist. I'm afraid I'm not likely to read any of these books since, as political commentators and authors, they have a vested interest in exaggeration and lies, and that interest is selling more books. Is it possible you could just give me some details? Even a synopsis?

First Book I mentioned has to do specifically with the Obama Presidency and uses sources to back up what is stated in the book.

The 2nd Book is concerning the mainstream media, it is a follow-up of Bernard Goldberg's first book...

The 3rd Book I mentioned, I actually have a copy of the book, and I went through Sean Hannity's bibliography section that listed sources and started digging them up on my own, I actually found that in some instances he was understating the issue.

Look you asked a question as to what people are referring to when we're bringing up the liberal agenda, I gave you some sources to go through.

I can't force you to read through them, but I think I provided you a way to look at things for yourself, whether you choose to take the time to investigate is your own decision.

 

[Ana the Ist]

First Book I mentioned has to do specifically with the Obama Presidency and uses sources to back up what is stated in the book.

The 2nd Book is concerning the mainstream media, it is a follow-up of Bernard Goldberg's first book...

The 3rd Book I mentioned, I actually have a copy of the book, and I went through Sean Hannity's bibliography section that listed sources and started digging them up on my own, I actually found that in some instances he was understating the issue.

Look you asked a question as to what people are referring to when we're bringing up the liberal agenda, I gave you some sources to go through.

I can't force you to read through them, but I think I provided you a way to look at things for yourself, whether you choose to take the time to investigate is your own decision.

Hmmm...maybe I'm not saying this correctly. I can tell by your description of the first two books they wouldn't really apply to what I'm looking for. A book about Obama's presidency obviously wouldn't apply to the agenda of liberals in general, nor would a book about the mainstream media. When I hear the word used, the implication is politicians, media outlets, schools, unions, etc. are all part of (or working towards) some vague (and I say vague because its never described) "liberal" agenda. Is there an actual agenda? Is there a description of it? That's what I'm looking for...not just some commentator's opinion of Obama or the media.

 

[Thunder Peel]

Yes, there's an agenda. What many conservatives are frustrated with is the media, Hollywood, journalists, and reporters slanting their stories and their work to reflect liberal values while also demeaning conservatives and anyone else to doesn't hold the same worldview. Just look at how they mercilessly attacked Bush for gas prices, drone strikes, and spending, yet Obama has doubled all of these areas and suddenly they're no longer upset. They refuse to report about it and will instead only report on anything that makes him look good and anyone who opposes him to look bad. They accuse conservatives of being biased with Fox News but never criticize CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, and NPR for leaning significantly to the left. Apparently it's wrong for the right to have their own news network but the left should have as many as they want with no penalty. People want facts, not spin and indoctrination. Liberals won't admit it but those networks have been a mouthpiece and campaign tool for the Democrats for decades. Republicans got tired of getting nothing but negative coverage and decided to finally use talk radio and Fox to give people the other side of the story that the major networks will no longer broadcast. I just want the facts so I can make up my own mind, not a talking head telling me what I should believe or who I should vote for.

What's sad is that many of these people believe there's nothing wrong with what they're doing. They see nothing ethically wrong with claiming to be fair while slanting their work to praise more taxes, gay rights, abortion, more government, strong regulation, and gun control. The very celebrities who speak out against the "evil 1%" are the 1% themselves. Those that accused Bush of lying won't call Obama on his own lies and broken promises. The liberal agenda that many of us are tired of is the idea that they can never be wrong or report on party members who act improperly, all while looking down on middle-class Americans who hold traditional values. They mock Christians and traditionalists ceaselessly while holding themselves up as the party of tolerance and understanding.

I've done my own research and paid close attention to this over the years. The more I look into it the more I'm appalled at the double standards and those who see nothing wrong with it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, there's an agenda. What many conservatives are frustrated with is the media, Hollywood, journalists, and reporters slanting their stories and their work to reflect liberal values while also demeaning conservatives and anyone else to doesn't hold the same worldview. Just look at how they mercilessly attacked Bush for gas prices, drone strikes, and spending, yet Obama has doubled all of these areas and suddenly they're no longer upset. They refuse to report about it and will instead only report on anything that makes him look good and anyone who opposes him to look bad.

What's sad is that many of these people believe there's nothing wrong with what they're doing. They see nothing ethically wrong with claiming to be fair while slanting their work to praise more taxes, gay rights, abortion, more government, strong regulation, and gun control. The very celebrities who speak out against the "evil 1%" are the 1% themselves. Those that accused Bush of lying won't call Obama on his own lies and broken promises. The liberal agenda that many of us are tired of is the idea that they can never be wrong or report on party members who act improperly, all while looking down on middle-class Americans who hold traditional values. The mock Christians and traditionalists ceaselessly while holding themselves up as the party of tolerance and understanding.

I've done my own research and paid close attention to this over the years. The more I see and look into the more I'm appalled at the double standards and those who see nothing wrong with it.

Wonderful....an actual explanation. So its basically the "media" and really started with Obama?

 

[SolomonVII]

So...three political commentators...one who used to be a journalist. I'm afraid I'm not likely to read any of these books since, as political commentators and authors, they have a vested interest in exaggeration and lies, and that interest is selling more books. Is it possible you could just give me some details? Even a synopsis?

Why even ask for a detailed account if you are not interested in doing the necessary reading to get those kind of details that you request in the first place?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why even ask for a detailed account if you are not interested in doing the necessary reading to get those kind of details that you request in the first place?

Because I just want an explanation of the agenda....not three books full of opinion pieces. I listen to Hannity, I doubt I'm going to read anything new in his book. Besides, I can explain liberalism in less than a page....but I need three books to understand the "liberal agenda". That's silly.

 

[Thunder Peel]

Wonderful....an actual explanation. So its basically the "media" and really started with Obama?

It's not just the media but they definitely carry much of the blame. Many colleges have extremely liberal deans and professors who unabashedly promote liberal ideas in their classroom, which I don't believe is right either. It's not a professor's job to tell you about their politics, whether liberal or conservative. That has no place in a classroom that's supposed to be about objective and factual learning.

The media's fawning over Obama has certainly left a bad taste in my mouth but that kind of behavior has been going on for decades. News as a whole in our country is unreliable and far too slanted. I hate having to watch and read multiple sources just to get every side of the story when a good journalist could provide me with all of that in one story.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's not just the media but they definitely carry much of the blame. Many colleges have extremely liberal deans and professors who unabashedly promote liberal ideas in their classroom, which I don't believe is right either. It's not a professor's job to tell you about their politics, whether liberal or conservative. That has no place in a classroom that's supposed to be about objective and factual learning.

The media's fawning over Obama has certainly left a bad taste in my mouth but that kind of behavior has been going on for decades. News as a whole in our country is unreliable and far too slanted. I hate having to watch and read multiple sources just to get every side of the story when a good journalist could provide me with all of that in one story.

Surely you don't mean that the media has been "fawning" over Obama for decades....he hasn't really gotten much press before his first campaign to my knowledge.

 

[Thunder Peel]

Surely you don't mean that the media has been "fawning" over Obama for decades....he hasn't really gotten much press before his first campaign to my knowledge.

No, the fawning only started back when he was first running. However, they've promoted other Democratic candidates (Clinton, Kerry, Pelosi, Reed, etc.) and tried to tarnish Republicans by trying to make them look heartless or stupid. That's the biggest issue that I have with the mainstream press: they no longer try to hide their bias. I didn't see any of the major networks (aside from Fox) criticize anything Obama said last year during the election, yet they attacked Romney continuously with accusations and reports that had no basis in fact. All I want is to see both parties treated equally, and I think many Americans do to. Just tell us what's honestly happening and let us decide what we think.

Immediately after the Boston bombings this week there were already commentators saying that it was probably a Tea Party activist or some disgruntled opponent of Obama. I have no tolerance for that kind of blatant demonization. There's a serious level of hate and disdain for anyone on the right that I find unsettling. You can disagree with someone but actually hoping that a terrorist bombing can be blamed on them? That's a new kind of low.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, the fawning only started back when he was first running. However, they've promoted other Democratic candidates (Clinton, Kerry, Pelosi, Reed, etc.) and tried to tarnish any Republicans. That's the biggest issue that I have with the mainstream press: they no longer try to hide their bias. Immediately after the Boston bombings this week there were already commentators saying that it was probably a Tea Party activist or some disgruntled opponent of Obama. I have no tolerance for that kind of blatant demonization. There's a serious level of hate and disdain for anyone on the right that I find unsettling. You can disagree with someone but actually hoping that a terrorist bombing can be blamed on them? That's a new kind of low.

You also had commentators saying that it was probably a Middle Eastern Muslim. That kind of demonization okay with you?

 

[USincognito]

Immediately after the Boston bombings this week there were already commentators saying that it was probably a Tea Party activist or some disgruntled opponent of Obama.

Immediately? Got any examples?

 

[dgiharris]

If I can attempt to answer the OPPOSITE of OP's question.

If I were to discuss what is the GOP's agenda I would say:

GOP believes race and racism is no longer an issue or a minor insignificant issue at best and the case of racism (if there is such a thing) is due to minorities overly using the race card, thus there is no need for affirmative action

GOP believes that empowering the rich/corporations (to include tax breaks, tax shelters, subsidies, etc) is the best way to stimulate and grow the economy and that there will be a trickle down effect that will benefit the lower classes

GOP believes that the problems of greed and corruption are caused by regulation and needless laws, remove regulation and unnecessary laws and the free market will naturally and organically solve all the economic problems of this country

GOP believes that the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct and should not be touched no matter what (apparently this is the only amendment the GOP holds to such high esteem as they regularly snip away at the first amendment)

GOP believes abortion is murder and must be prevented at all costs

GOP believes homosexuality is immoral and harmful to society and homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as everyone else because homosexuality is a choice

GOP believes that the lower class minimum wage types are poor because they did/do not work hard enough and that they had the same opportunity as the middle and upper class to advance up the social ladder, and views any assistance to the lower class as equivalent to socialist hand outs.

GOP believes foreign policy should occur from a position of strength and that America should dictate terms not negotiate

GOP believes Government is inherently bad and must be removed from as many aspects of the economy and the public's life as possible (to even include public schools)

GOP believes the military is essential to National Security and must be well maintained and funded no matter the costs

GOP believes the Democrats are trying to destroy America and they must be opposed on every issue that differs from the GOP party line...

obviously some of the party line is good, some of the party line is debatable, and some of the party line is outright ridiculous

 

[childofGod1]

You also had commentators saying that it was probably a Middle Eastern Muslim. That kind of demonization okay with you?

Since there have been a number of similar bombings perpetrated by Middle Eastern Muslims, there are many Middle Eastern Muslims who have publicly vowed to damage and destroy Americans any time they get a chance, and irrefutable proof that there are whole Middle Eastern Muslim organizations with millions of dollars invested in training a vast network of terrorists to attack American people, it seems like a fairly reasonable assumption.

Accusing the Tea party, on the other hand is pure political posturing. There have been no Tea Part bombings, no Tea Party training facilities, no public declarations of an intent to kill Americans, nothing but the personal paranoia of a few radically left wing journalists (I use the term very loosely).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Since there have been a number of similar bombings perpetrated by Middle Eastern Muslims, there are many Middle Eastern Muslims who have publicly vowed to damage and destroy Americans any time they get a chance, and irrefutable proof that there are whole Middle Eastern Muslim organizations with millions of dollars invested in training a vast network of terrorists to attack American people, it seems like a fairly reasonable assumption.

Accusing the Tea party, on the other hand is pure political posturing. There have been no Tea Part bombings, no Tea Party training facilities, no public declarations of an intent to kill Americans, nothing but the personal paranoia of a few radically left wing journalists (I use the term very loosely).

One could also argue that, given the extreme anti-government rhetoric of the far right and reports of increased right-wing extremism, it seems "fairly reasonable" to assume that the perpetrators were right-wing radicals. And yet making this assumption is construed as "demonising", whereas assuming that any attack involves Muslims is "fairly reasonable"? Shocking double standards.

 

[lordbt]

What is it? I mean this in all seriousness. I consider myself a moderate, having many liberal views on domestic policy and many conservative views on foreign policy. I keep hearing pundits and posters alike speak about a "liberal agenda" or even a "progressive agenda". I don't know if these are the same, different, or whether they overlap in some way because I don't know what these agendas entail.

Example: An associated press story contains some information that conservatives disagree with and I hear a conservative say, "See? This is proof the media is part of the liberal agenda!". I never actually hear what the so-called agenda is. Please reply with a detailed description of the agenda...not some vague answer like, "Everything Obama has done since being elected." That kind of answer isn't useful at all. Thank you!

The 'liberal agenda' is the advocacy of state power as a means of addressing perceived social ills. While that sounds wonderful, the growth of state power comes at the expense of individual liberty. Liberals tend not to care about that sort of thing though, particularly when it comes to economic liberty and free markets.

 

[childofGod1]

The 'liberal agenda' is the advocacy of state power as a means of addressing perceived social ills. While that sounds wonderful, the growth of state power comes at the expense of individual liberty. Liberals tend not to care about that sort of thing though, particularly when it comes to economic liberty and free markets.

That's very well said and I admire your patience in explaining these things over and over. Sometimes I read the confused posts I see here, shake my head and move on. I've had children in my care for thirty continuous years. (Wow, it hardly seems possible.) I find my own patience wearing a bit thin.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's very well said and I admire your patience in explaining these things over and over. Sometimes I read the confused posts I see here, shake my head and move on. I've had children in my care for thirty continuous years. (Wow, it hardly seems possible.) I find my own patience wearing a bit thin.

Hollow rhetoric suffices for an explanation to some I suppose.