Ron Silver: "The end of my days as a prominent liberal"

C-Span | 4/12/03 | Scothia

[Diddle E. Squat]

Oops, I forgot to add :^) to my post #37.

[dogbyte12]

Another ex-liberal here. My ideals haven't changed, just my grasp of reality. I still want a better world, I want freedom and democracy.

I just realize what a-holes the people who love Saddam and Castro and Kim are and how they are preventing freedom from occuring.

I want blacks to succeed... on their own merits. I want the poor to be lifted from poverty, handouts doesn't do it.

I think there is a divide though... there still are a small small miniscule minority of the old GOP who don't share these goals. W is changing that. Pat Buchanan joins with Lenora Fullani, and Ron Silver is cheering our troops. Who woulda thunk it.

[blake6900]

Ron Silver: "The end of my days as a prominent liberal"

I don't think Silver is making his way to the conservative side. I think he's simply admitting that he's persona non grata with the liberal crowd, that's all.

He's already said on Hannity and Colmes that he's still a domestic liberal so perhaps we should think twice before welcoming him with open arms...

[lilylangtree]

Being a pessimist, have to ask: is the temperature on the leftist actors starting to get hot?

[Illbay]

Secular Jews resent Israel because it is an historical reminder that Jews are called by a living God to be a chosen people.

Perfect example of the self-delusion that most fundy Christians engage in with respect to Israel.

It's not so much "secular American Jews," but LEFTIST American Jews who are critical these days of Israel. And they are critical because they oppose the Israeli government, which is only moderately Left, not Extreme Left, like they want.

And the modern, secular state of Israel, created by the United Nations--not the Hand of God--in 1948, was and has been led the entire time by SECULAR JEWS exactly like those you are criticizing right now.

There has never been a single attempt by any mainstream Jewish leadership in Israel to allege that they are "following God's calling to be a chosen people."

The Jews were NOT EVER in and of themselves a "chosen people." Most fundy Christians, ignorant as they are of history and the scriptures, forget that God spoke NOT to the Jews, but to ISRAEL, which included TWELVE TRIBES not just one. And they further forget that with the coming of the Messiah, and the atonement of Christ, ALL MANKIND may become part of the covenant people.

There is not a single, solitary shred of truth to this notion that "Israel" is a chosen people, or nation, or state, or whatever.

In fact, by the time that "Jews" came to be, they had lost their connection with God through disobedience to those prophets that had been sent to call them to repentence. The Lord ONE LAST TIME called them again, through sending the Messiah. Some Jews accepted Him, but MOST rejected Him, and so they are under the SAME condemnation as anyone else on this earth, if they continue that rejection.

"Jews" are not "chosen." They never were. They USED to be part of the larger group of people, "Israel," who were called by God to BE a chosen people, but most of them have never accepted that call.

So if you are a true believer in Christ, and accept Him, and come unto Him, then YOU are chosen no matter what your bloodline.

If a Jew rejects Christ, will not come unto Him and accept Him, then he is a heathen just as surely as if he had been born a gentile.

I'm sorry, I've just lost patience with this completely erroneous myth about modern Judaism.

Judaism is a religion like any other, and not endowed with any "special status" in the eyes of God at all.

All men are commanded to come unto Christ if they wish to be saved. No exceptions.

[Scothia]

let's start calling the so-called liberals what they truly are: fascists and socialists. The concept of fascism derives from the Roman tradition that the person, in the Roman Senate, who holds the bundle of sticks (the "fasci") is at that moment in power, in control of the Senate and controls what happens. Fascists believe that they are in the right because they have the power. That, I think, sums up Bill and Hill and little Tommy. Remember, NAZI is an acronym for the National Socialist party. Saddam's Ba'athist's are (were)Islamic Socialists. We are truly in a battle between civilaziation and barbarism.

Let's take back our language and deny them their Orwellian definitions of who is who and what is what.

This is an awesome post, and I agree wholeheartedly. As a former hippiecrat myself, I have sought to find a name that suits what I have come to see is right and true. I am the true liberal! I believe that American liberty is God-given and just, and should be liberally applied to all people everywhere. I believe that the freedoms paid for by the blood of brave men and women ought to be liberally available in every oppressed corner of the Earth.

So-called liberals in this country would conserve freedom only for themselves and their own kind. They do not want average people to speak and think for themselves, to be armed and able to defend themselves, to have the opportunity to find their own destinies. They want people dependent on the state of the so-called liberals in order to live; to have to crawl to them for permission to stand up straight if they're not one of the "elite".

So, good, thought-provoking post. What should we call ourselves? True Progressives? What?

[katana]

I've tried many times to express what you wrote, but never half so well. It would be a great thing if the genuine and correct terms could once again be used. Liberal should mean a believer in personal individual freedom, not a statist. Conservative ought to mean what it has always meant, a preserver and advocate of the existing order.

The policies and attitudes of those who disguise themselves under what used to be a respectable name "liberal" are wholely fascist, statist, socialist, and (gasp) communist. Changing the terms would amount to pulling their mask away and they would fight tooth and nail to keep that from happening.

[Illbay]

No. They are anti-American.

I knew people in College in the mid-70s, who were simultaneously anti-American, anti-American military, anti-Republican, pro-Socialist, and PRO-ISRAEL. In fact, that was almost a GIVEN, because most of them were "secular Jews" of the kind who FOUNDED Israel and lived their. I had to sit through more slide-shows on "my summer in the kibbutz" than I care to recall.

Most of those who are supposedly "anti-Israel" today are actually "anti-Likud". If the Labour party were back in power, they'd be cheering and screaming.

[Illbay]

You know, I do use SystemWorks and WinFax Pro! That could explain a lot...

[homeagain balkansvet]

Of course I'm a liberal democrat. That's why I'm a Conservative Republican.

(Now, is that neo-conservative, paleo- conservative, Bronze Age conservative, Iron Age Conservative, theo-conservative, Log Cabin conservative, evil krischun nazi prolifer scum conservative.....?)

[Illbay]

I just mean that stating that "[COUNTRY] has a right to defend itself" doesn't lend itself readily to argument.

[2rightsleftcoast]

I agree with you. I am glad Silver spoke at the rally but I will have a wait and see attitude on him for now.

[stripes1776]

A substantial number of the anti-war crowd are anti-Semitic, so the example of Nazi Germany makes no impression on them.

A substantial number of the anti-war crowd are Jewish and anti-Israel. Go figure.

[ALS]

So Long Wrong Silver makes a right turn eh?

NEXT!

[Hildy]

Silver is a cousin of a good friend of mine whom I will be seeing at the end of the month. I'll try to find out the scoop. Unfortunately thought, my friend is a big time Hollywood liberal. Oh well...one at a time.

[MEG33]

Bit by bit, step by step.

[lilylangtree]

Righto! A longtime hardcore leftist actor seeing the error of his ways type of speech makes me suspicious. There's a catalyst somewhere. Maybe, all the letters to Hollyweirdos, polls, boycotting (or threatening thereof) and withdrawal of speaking engagements for various actors may have produced a result. Or, the actor to jumpstart his career, hopped on the popular pro-troop, pro USA movement for the press coverage, since as reported yesterday the anti-war demostrator movement is ebbing. Just because someone handed me BS doesn't mean that I don't want to know where the smell came from.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I heard Ron Silver speak very recently. He said he was a liberal.. but totally supported the President and the troops. (I could be wrong, but I think it was on Jay Leno, but could have been O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes).

He spoke of how Martin Sheen did not speak for everyone working on "The West Wing". And how he probably would never be invited back now that he has spoken out. I believe he said Rob Lowe felt the same way he did.

I think he is a man of integrity. He could show republican Kevin Costner a thing or two about "getting it".

Perhaps Kevin Costner is going to counter Silvers move by switching to the party of his good friend Saradon.

Anyway.. the man went up a "ton" of notches in our book!!

[PJ-Comix]

Those are OUR liberals now!!!

[HHFi]

You're right, the word "liberal" these days means nothing like what it used to mean. Remember when liberals thought the noblest calling you could have was to participate in a war to overthrow an oppressive dictator? (Ernest Hemingway built his reputation with the literary crowd on that romantic notion). I've heard tapes of old Hubert Humphrey speeches about the importance of traditional family values that would've gotten him booed off the stage at one of today's freak show-like Democratic Conventions. And can you imagine someone with the common sense and patriotism of Will Rogers still being a Democrat today? The mind reels.