Now to start a discourse!
I'm a liberal! I admit it.. yes the cardinal sin... I think it was because I listened to too much Rush Limbaugh (I mean seriously, have you listened to that guy?? ALL he does is 'hate' on the liberals.. NEVER EVER mentions anything about what repubs stand for... )
THat's it... I'm a liberal.. Let the hate begin!
Actually, I try to listen to Rush daily (sometimes my job does not allow me the option). And he does not "hate" anyone. He just does not like them (hate is an emotion that is the twin of love, not the opposite). He denigrates them, belittles them, and makes fun of them constantly because he believes 2 things about liberals (not your man on the street, but the ones in charge).
1. They lie all the time. And they lie because if they told the truth, no one would elect them.
2. They are not about helping, but about gaining and keeping power.
Now I am not a republican, but I could almost say the same for them (as about democrats/liberals). However, I do not believe that Conservatives are the same as republicans, nor that they are like liberals. The basic difference between a liberal and a conservative is the same as the difference between an autocrat and an enabler. Conservatives want you to succeed. Liberals want you to be dependent upon them (in order to maintain their power).
So while I can believe you do not like Rush, I do not believe you are a liberal. But labels can be applied to anything, so you can call yourself whatever you wish.
I'm not a liberal nor do I hate them. Most of my friends are conservatives and I can't think of one who would use the word "hate" to describe the liberals personally. They may hate their ideas/platform but not the person.
In fact I have one very nice friend who is as liberal as they come and I think alot of her as a person. Same with my very liberal grandmother. We get into some very heated arguments about politics but in the end we love each other.
You live at home with your mom right?
Of course you're a liberal.
Once you get back out on your own, earning a living, that will change. You'll want to keep the money you earn for your family, not give it away.
LMAO! Who still lives with mom, KFC or Dr Guy?
(btw, chicklet, I'm outta Blogster and back home. how ya feeling? when i remember how to use the pms here, i'll send you my new phone #. Facebook was just too huge for little old moi.)
/facepalm.
The above remark was for Tova, thought I was on her blog. You just got some free karma, M-post, lolol! Are you the one she's referring to? Don't feel bad. I lived with my momz too. Until I was 17.
It must not be all that fun being a liberal these days under the Obama regime. Liberals these days remind me of the last Germans still Seig Heiling the Fuhrer in the bunker as the Allies advanced into Berlin.
Vee Need more gunz vee need more gunz vee izzz dah mastahhh race.....
Vee seig heil, vee seig heil right in der furhers face......
Uh, there's an app for that.
Oh wow, posted this one, then forgot about it.. LoL
Yeah, I'm still with the parents.. after 10 years of being independant, I'm only here on vacation terms until my job starts in February. Since it's a job where, after they send me to school, they will then tell me where I'm working (Virginia/Maine/Cali/Alaska/Overseas.. ) I didn't feel like getting a place somewhere just yet Luckily I have parents who are willing to let me stay with em (I am paying bills while I'm here, my own and helping them out so that I'm not 'leeching')
Now though, still Liberal. Maybe not a crazy one, but still on that side boat.
Life is easier if you are a bit crazy.
Ah well, then, that's no fun.
Good luck on your job relocation! Hope you get an awesome place....
Ha, not that I know you that well, but I would have described you as having liberal leanings but not a core liberal through and through.
It takes more than Rush to make a liberal-minded person. He certainly knows liberalism. I'd say from listening to his show that Rush hates liberalism but not liberals themselves.
DrG posts:
I totally agree.
In general, Liberals have an obsession with their values and "rights"...but the right of human life to be born doesn't apply They rank Self esteem ahead of human dignity. THey love "change" as long as it weakens traditional values and they applaud government control over every aspect of our lives except sexual behavior.
Liberals tend to depend and support centralized government to solve whatever problems come along. They express compassion by asking for more government programs or more funding for current programs, to help people which requires more taxation. Liberals believe that government should take care of the poor, educate children, and fund social services. Liberals cherish freedom to do whatever they want.
So Tova, what are some of your liberal positions?
Liberals cherish freedom to do whatever they want.
And they see it necessary to legally force others to do whatever they want too.
I also take issue with the claim that Rush "hates" liberals. I've never heard him be hateful. Hateful is saying people should die horribly. I've heard that a lot of places....but not from Rush. He doesn't claim to be tolerant of liberal politics. He is in full disclosure of his politics. He is for conservatism and against liberalism but he has never been hateful toward individuals or even questioned individual's rights, only their reasoning.
Exactly....case in point....Obummercare health control would have federally mandated for individuals to purchase health care or face a fine.
(BTW, a judge was just ruled Obummercare unConstitutional).
I think Rush got his reputation because he thinks logically, not emotionally. So they assume when you do not "feel" for someone, you must hate them. A very poor and incorrect conclusion, but when you are not thinking rationally, a common misperception. Watch a liberal debate - either here or elsewhere - and inevitably they will do 2 things - assign their prejudices to you - and wish you a speedy and painful death. (If you do not agree to agree with them). That is because to them, since you do not "feel", you are evil and a hatemonger. They do not see the hypocrisy of their own hatred when wishing you the fast and painful demise.
I thought it would add fuel and insight to this discussion.
The word liberalism is used in many different senses, at least one of which has been condemned by the Church (Pius IX, Quanta Cura, 1864). At its philosophical core, liberalism seeks emancipation from the supernatural, moral and Divine order, with a rejection of all authority that does not originate in the self. It is precisely this form of liberalism that lies at the heart of the contemporary culture wars, both within the United States and between various countries in the European Union.
A member Poland’s presidential cabinet, Ryszard Legutko, has given us a trenchant and fascinating analysis of this sort of liberalism at work in the world. Legutko’s analysis, taken from a speech he made in 2006, has been adapted as an article in the Winter 2008 issue of Modern Age. It is so good that I wish to summarize it here:
To begin, Legutko suggests the following formula for identifying a liberal:
A liberal is someone who takes a rather thin view of man, society, morality, religion, history, and philosophy, believing this to be the safest approach to organizing human cooperation. He does not deny that thicker, non-procedural principles and norms are possible, but believes these to be particular preferences which possess validity only within particular groups and communities. For this reason he refuses to attribute to such principles and norms any universal value and he protests whenever someone attempts to impose his profound beliefs, however true they may seem to him, on the entire social body. Liberals might have divergent opinions on economic freedoms and the role of government, but they are united in their conviction that thinness of anthropological, moral, and metaphysical assumptions is the prerequisite for freedom and peace.
Legutko then goes on to present five arguments against the assumptions at the heart of liberalism, five important points which reveal the bankruptcy of liberalism:
First, liberalism has an extremely modest position in the entire history of human experience: “To put it simply: liberalism as a theory is not interesting.” Legutko notes that it is extremely difficult to think of any outstanding thinker or writer who can be characterized solely as a liberal. Great minds have always attempted to achieve wisdom by taking strong positions on ultimate questions, but “the liberal ignores those questions because he considers them either irrelevant or…dangerous.”
Second, “liberals always place themselves in a higher position than their interlocutors, and from that position they have an irresistible urge to dominate.” While claiming to want a society in which people are free to make their own decisions, “they always usurp for themselves…the role of the architectonic organizer of society; thus they always want to dominate by performing the roles of the guardians of the whole of the social system and the judges of the procedural rules within the system.”
Third, liberals confuse two distinct claims about freedom: the claim that freedom of action should not be impeded by arbitrary will, and the claim that what free people want is a liberal order. “By identifying these two beliefs [as one and the same] liberals assume that whoever wants freedom must necessarily want liberalism, and whoever wants liberalism must necessarily want freedom. Armed with this assumption liberals assess the progress of freedom by the yardstick of acceptance of their own system.”
Fourth, while preaching the superiority of pluralism, liberals actually propagate an intensely dualistic vision of the world, dividing all persons into two camps: pluralists and monists. Pluralists are liberals. Monists are “ayatollahs, Adolf Hitlers, Christian fundamentalists, Catholic integrists, Islamists, conservatives and many more.” The result is not only ideologically convenient; it also degrades thought and leads to “sweeping judgments, positive or negative, about everything in the past, present, and future.”
Fifth, fearful of potential enslavement lurking everywhere, liberals embrace all “modern ideological mystifications, which are often created in bad faith and from evidently erroneous assumptions.” Ideologies such as Communism are a good example but liberals are routinely co-opted by all who adopt their “rhetoric of liberation”. In a liberal order, every group learns “to make a convincing case that it is a victim of a particularly sinister form of discrimination.” Liberals can only encourage more of this, leading to ever greater social chaos.
Legutko concludes that, practically speaking, liberalism breeds “ideological commissars who have acquired remarkable abilities to silence their critics. For whoever disagrees with them is a potential candidate to become a new Adolf Hitler.” Indeed, if you emancipate man from God, he inevitably becomes his own worst enemy. What’s wrong with liberalism? Riszard Legutko has it exactly right.
Some of my liberal views Lula?
Well, since you asked.
I think "we the people" or the government by proxy should provide healthcare for children under the age of 18 if their parents can't afford it. (Same goes for food and shelter. Yes, I know we do this already, ~just sayin)
I also don't have a problem with gays serving in the military, though I don't think there should be any "special" or separate accommodations. (We visited this on another thread.)
That's about all I can think about right off the bat.
This is so embarrassing! I'm getting loopy in my reading skills. To be honest, I have been posting comments all along thinking that it was you Tova who wrote this article and said you are a liberal.
Tova, that's why I asked you what are some of your liberal views! So sorry about that and thank you for being so good natured about it.
No worries....I thought you were just trying to get me involved in the conversation more..
I'm not liberal enough to be called liberal. For the most part I fall pretty conservative. But I do think to be considered a "civilized" society, we should have certain social programs (mostly for children).
Never once have I seen you accuse anyone of racism or Nazism, so you are definitely not a liberal.
Under God, there are 3 major foundational spheres of delegated authority...the family, religious and civil government...and each one has its rightful purpose in social considerations.
The responsibility to provide for the needs of children falls on the individual, the family and on religious authority.
But in today's culture, there has been a major shift in this responsibility and by in large Liberals created it. Liberals would have the State (civil authority) perform the tasks entrusted to the other two, and we've seen that this infringement usually causes damages that end up hurting people.
The civil government has taken responsibility for taking care of children and of the needy. And is it working? I'd say No it isn't..matter of fact...it's been a disaster.
Trillions of $$$ down the hole only to produce a society that's more needy and economically dependent on civil government.
In my own personal experience these three things failed me, failed my brother, failed period. Luckily the state stepped in and picked up the slack or there is no telling where I'd be today. Most likely dead.
I'm sorry to hear that Tova. Not to get personal here, but I thought you had an Aunt Shelby who took care of you.
Anyway, it goes back to Liberals and Liberalism and the point that Liberals would have the State (civil authority) perform the tasks entrusted to the other two.We've seen that this "nanny state" infringement usually causes damages that end up hurting people.
So, Yes, the civil authorities have their distinctive purpose and function and yes, it is good for all when they carry out their duties for the maintainence and promotion of good over evil in societal interaction.
I did. But she came and got me from a group home after the state interceded in my behalf and removed me from the home. Most of the girls in the group home stayed there until they were 18 because their families were worthless.
I think the shift in culture came because a lot of "religious" institutions dropped the ball, or just couldn't afford the task. It's not cheap, but in the long run for society I believe it pays off to take care of them.
I support people being able to do what they want as long as I don't have to pay for their choices.
Liberals tend to believe that there should be no consequences to personal choices and the rest of us should subsidize those choices.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
