
by: Clyde Middleton posted: 2009-07-06 10:41:00
Viewed 327 times. 4 Comments.
I had a rather lively day yesterday commenting on various sites with liberals. My personal favorite was in response to an article entitled “Vegans glad to see Palin go.” I wrote something like – “It’s a non sequitur to assume that vegans are liberals. I’m vegan, yet conservative.” He was kind enough to respond, albeit in a bit testy yet controlled way. He said that he couldn’t understand how I could be vegan and support Palin, and further that he didn’t see how I inferred from his article that all vegans did not like Palin (or were liberal – I forget). Amusingly, I held back “op cit. – your TITLE” and just bantered a bit. The dude’s issue is that he writes about a vegan lifestyle, and ventured into politics. Tsk, tsk.
My other voyages were different flavors, but I perceived a theme out there. I think the best embodiment is Obama’s “I won” mantra. Any thinking person would rejoin, “Yeah, so what’s the substantive response to my concerns with your proposed legislation?” To which the speaker repeats with uplifted chin, “I won.” Growing up we referred to such people as having the “intellectual depth of a mud puddle.”
Conservative: “I hear a ticking sound close to that cylinder. What do you think it is?”
Liberal: “The engine’s broke.”
Are they really that vacuous? C’mon, I know lots of liberals – they can be caring, serious, loving, devoted people. Of course there’s the irresponsible lot out there, but I know just as many irresponsible conservatives. Yet when I think of words like “friend,” “trust,” and “commitment” the issue of an individual’s politics never enters my mind.
I remember two brief conversations I had with friends:
Liberal friend 1: “I like [President Bill] Clinton’s educational policies.”
Me: “OK. Which ones? Why?”
Liberal friend 1: [Page left intentionally blank]
Liberal friend 2: “Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard.”
Me: “OK. When was the last time you listened to him?”
Liberal friend 2: “Well, I’ve never actually listened to him.”
Me: [Page left intentionally blank]
These conversations suggest one type of liberal to me (and, yes, put your thesaurus down, there is a corollary conservative): The Finale Liberal. They are not interested in the details – that’s someone else’s job. They will write their own Cliff Notes version from the data they perceive during their 40,000-foot flyover, reach some conclusion, and move on (after voting based upon said conclusion, of course).
Returning to the “I won” mantra, this suggests to me another type of liberal: The Entitled Liberal. To them, since “they won” they are thoroughly entitled to do anything they want to do. However, here’s the rub – when they lose, they are likewise entitled to do anything they want to do because, well, we live in a democracy! To them, conservatives are incapable of compromise because conservatives seem to refuse to accept the liberal’s world view. Explaining that “compromise” means both parties move their position is pointless because either “they won” or they live in a democracy. These are the same ones that call us “bigots” for having differing opinions. I don’t have the data to back this up, but I believe that more conservatives than liberals smoke and drink, and Entitled Liberals are the primary reason for that.
Another form is liberal is the Cause Liberal. Ever devote yourself to a cause? I mean, really devote yourself? Pick one – your lawn, for example. You research nutrients. You cut it when the height exceeds two centimeters (btw, I wait until I can see where the deer bed at night – I refer affectionately to my back yard as a “meadow”). You walk it each evening to see errant growth and collect litter. But now wear the mantle of a Cause Liberal. You put out a sign that reads “My yard isn’t your ashtray!” You sit on the porch and watch cars – not to wave at the passerbys, but staring only at the open window waiting for an arm to emerge to see if they toss anything. You write the township explaining that their chip-and-gravel road surface seeds your lawn with loose stones. Of course, your position is sound – since it is summer and you are cutting the grass two times a week, what if a child on a bike rode past at the precise time your lawnmower launched a stone like a Scud missile out of Palestinian-occupied Gaza? And therein lies the challenge conservatives have with Cause Liberals – the latter projects their cause. They can’t just believe something and devote their personal effort to it, they insist on everyone around them likewise making it their cause.
Now we get to the most challenging of all: The Entitled-Cause Libtard. It’s a hybrid and, like most creations of dual origin, tends to flame out like a North Korean missile. These are the folks that told us that plastic was better than paper in grocery stores, that the science is “closed” on global warming, and that if only we allowed fetal stem-cell research the crippled would be walking today. In order to “save” the US economy, they tell us, they have to kill the very thing that made it – capitalism. They project their causes as noble, as irrefutable, and as absolutely necessary or the very planet will die. They believe that the fabric of space is malleable based upon my use of a kerosene heater (I read an article that said that the gravitational placement of Earth in space was in jeopardy because of man-made global warming). They remind me of a momentarily frightening experience: I was in my yard during the summer, and the windows were open. My three year-old son screamed out from his bedroom. It was a deep throated, anguished scream. I thought he was hurt terribly. I flew into the house and up the stairs. He was OK. Relief flooded me like a coastline next to a melting glacier. His computer had somehow lost his saved games. I didn’t rescue his games, but he is a conservative as a young adult – so the war was won.
As a side note, I eagerly look forward each year to articles entitled, “Top scientific discoveries of [year]” to learn how humans have furthered their knowledge. Because physics fascinates me, I am usually familiar with several of the entries, but I always learn something. I have seen the very bedrock of scientific understanding rewritten in my seemingly too-quick 50 years on Earth.
Where does all of this lead me? I have a few basic beliefs: God, freedom, God, privacy, and God. Those are my starting points. Liberals and libtards are free to believe what they choose, as I am free to believe otherwise. I am free to discuss my opinions, but not to impose them. I’ve learned that “never say never” is a substantively accurate statement. With all of this, I am compelled to do two things: Hold firmly to God, freedom, God, privacy, and God; and to keep an open mind.
What lacks in political discourse today from the entire continuum of political beliefs are open minds. I write about Israel and am called a “filthy Jew.” I write about conservative principles and am called a “knuckledragger.” I know - It’s on both sides. What does that do? It means that we are divided. A divided populace is precisely what the politicians want. They dream of it. And then they drag us through the water like a fish on a hook knowing that the divisions will ensure one thing: Their continuity in office.
For any liberal or libtard reading, explain to me why Obama can run deficits dwarfing W’s, yet W was an out-of-control spender. Explain to me why W’s “surge” in Iraq was bad, yet Obama’s “surge” in Afghanistan is good. Explain to me why you all screamed at W’s “overseas secret prisons for terrorists” yet are silent now that Obama said he will keep them open and functioning. Explain to me why 45 million “uninsured” is actually 6 million, yet you don’t correct him. Explain to me why the icecaps on Mars have receded and grown in sync with those on Earth, yet the “problem” here in man-made. Explain to me how you are going to pay the $1,000 annual fine for not accepting Obama’s health insurance. Explain to me how you will deal with your parent or child in pain as they lay dying because drug therapy has been rationed in precisely the same fashion it is rationed in every single socialized-medical system in use today. Explain to me how you can complain about Medicare and Medicaid today, yet it’s perfectly fine for Obama to expand those poorly functioning programs to every American. Explain to me why it is such a big deal to require someone that wants to vote being required to present a photo ID first. Explain to me why I have to produce a birth certificate to get a driver’s license, but Obama doesn’t have to produce one to be POTUS. Explain to me your feelings about having to buy your food from a grocery instead of the local farmer because the latest bill going through Congress will create such compliance problems that small farmers will not have the money to comply. Explain to me, on that same note, why we don’t respect religion by requiring that every farmer – the Amish included – be required to file all of those farm-compliance documents electronically. Explain to me why it doesn’t bother you that the Waxman-Markey bill will require you to upgrade your home to federally dictated energy standards before you can sell it. Explain to me why it doesn’t bother you that the federal government is going to make it a crime for putting more than 60 watts cumulative in your chandelier. And if any of these specifics are unfamiliar to you, then explain THAT to me.
Look, I’m not dumping on you. I just don’t get it. I don’t understand why you won’t sit at the table and openly discuss these things. Our freedoms are being taken away one straw at a time. Our privacy is being invaded. My personal decision to worship God in my own way is being eroded. And all I am told is – “I won.” I mean, like, hunh? Is that how you want to be treated when the political tide turns – as it always does?
We need to stop yelling at each other and to start having civil, intelligent discourses based upon mutual respect and open minds. It isn’t happening, and the dems are loving it today and the pubs will love it tomorrow. The piece missing is us. Get off your horse and talk to me. I promise that when it is my time to ride, I’ll lead the horse and walk with you.
Sound like a plan?
Trackback url: http://patriotroom.com/article/liberals-libtards-and-a-proffered-solution/trackback
GK, I know. Just thought I'd ask, so when I go into depth-charge mode I know I asked first.
I have learned the following when discussing, talking, or debating issues with liberals. As stated above, liberals argue with their hearts, their feelings. They tend not to have facts to make their points with. Thus, they get angry and you hurt their feelings. I have many liberal friends. I will love to discuss politics, religion, etc., with them. However, once you break that ground and hurt their feelings. They no longer want to be friends with you. What a shame. Good blog Clyde.
Thanks, Jeff. Yeah, I know. It's a remarkable drive by emotions they do. I don't understand it. The thirst for knowledge seems to end prematurely and then appears this, "And therefore" before it's time. Just frustrating.
Michelle Obama defended her husband against some of his most vocal critics, saying President Obama did a "phenomenal" job this year and that change is a long-term process. The first lady talks about her nationwide campaign called "Let's Move." "I think my husband has done a phenomenal job staying on course, looking his critics in the eye, coming up with clear solutions against staying the course," Michelle Obama told Robin Roberts in an exclusive morning television interview on "Good Morning America." "That's what leadership is. But people have the right to criticize the President of the United States."Let me finish that last thought for you, Michelle. I see you rubbing your hands together and thinking, "Yes, for now people have the right to criticize him, but we're working on changing that."
Views: 32 Comments: 0
In his letter, being sent out to Arpaio supporters today as part of a 100,000-person national direct mail drop, the sheriff calls Hayworth's decision to challenge McCain "courageous." And he pledges to help Hayworth "every step of the way." "Senator McCain has served this country admirably but it's time to replace his moderate or even liberal positions on taxes, the border, social causes and big bank bailouts with a consistent conservative like J.D.," Arpaio continues. "After years of running over Republican principles his entire career no election year conversion to our way of thinking will save his campaign from voters that want conservatives to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem," he says.
Views: 46 Comments: 0
McCain now finds himself jammed, moving starkly — and often awkwardly — to the right, apparently in an effort to gain favor among the same voters whom Mr. Hayworth, a consistent voice for the far right, could pull toward him like taffy come summer. McCain now sharply criticizes the bailout bill he voted for, pivoted from his earlier position that the Guantánamo Bay detention facility should be closed, offered only a muted response to the Supreme Court’s decision undoing campaign finance laws and backed down from statements that gays in the military would be O.K. by him... “John is undergoing a campaign conversion,” Mr. Hayworth said. Hayworth’s radio-personality bluster and big emotions.. may now have a part in the greater populist narrative that threatens many of the nation’s more centrist Republicans.
Views: 31 Comments: 0
Iran said Tuesday that it had begun producing higher-grade enriched uranium, marking a new and potentially dangerous turn in Tehran's confrontation with the West over its nuclear ambitions... U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis C. Blair told the House intelligence committee last week that "Iran has the scientific, the technical, the industrial capacity to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon in the next few years and eventually to produce a nuclear weapon. The central issue is a political decision by Iran to do so."
Views: 31 Comments: 0
I wouldn't want my fingerprints on anything this administration or congress proposes. Reid told reporters the bill would be introduced on Tuesday, and that it would include an extension of the tax breaks... Reid did not say how expensive the jobs bill would be. The Senate had been considering a package of roughly $80 billion. The House passed a larger jobs bill before Christmas, but now plans to unveil a different bill independent of that package, which did not garner Republican support.
Views: 58 Comments: 0
Back in November, the House passed its health care bill by a narrow 220 to 215 margin, with 39 Democrats voting against it. Since then, the one Republican who voted for it — Joseph Cao — has indicated that he would not support the bill a second time around given the weaker language on abortion in the Senate version. In addition, Florida Rep. Robert Wexler already retired prematurely. Factor in Murtha’s death today, and Pelosi is down to 217 votes — one short of passage. To pass the bill at some point in the next few months, she’ll need to flip a Democrat who is already on record voting against the bill.
Views: 123 Comments: 1
Don't think that Republicans can't be sucked in when an anti-Wall Street lynch mob gets its blood up. Recall that Sarbanes-Oxley, the devastating antigrowth response in 2002 to the Enron and Worldcom scandals, was passed with virtually unanimous support by Republicans in Congress, and signed by a Republican president. Recall that last year 85 House Republicans voted for a 90% tax on bonuses for any employee of any bank that took more than $5 billion in TARP money. Investors got some good news last Friday. Stocks resisted following through on Thursday's sharp plunge after (Congress) reached an impasse on bank re-regulation. That's a nice down payment on what investors need a lot more of now: proof that the GOP won't join Democrats in a populist rush to seek revenge against Wall Street.
Views: 78 Comments: 3
Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda. Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash.
Views: 78 Comments: 2
The Dow, down almost 104 points, had its 10th triple-digit move in 16 trading days. Shares of big banks pulled the market lower, extending a slump that has led to four straight weekly losses.I can't, for the life of me, understand why bank stocks would be dropping. Inexplicable.
Views: 57 Comments: 2
Contrary to President Obama's promises, voters say special interests have more influence on the political process now than they did a year ago, according to a new poll. The poll, paid for by groups looking to curb the Supreme Court's recent campaign finance ruling, found that majorities of both Republicans and Democrats say special interests have increased their influence since the president took office, and they say Mr. Obama has not done enough to fight back.
Views: 59 Comments: 1
"...start having civil, intelligent discourses based upon mutual respect and open minds." Not gonna happen.
I tried to have that intelligent (and fact based, on my part) discussion you are talking about with a liberal relative last week. After hours of fruitless talk about politics and the economy and multiple other issues I realized that she isn't interested in a discussion of the issues and solutions, she has an agenda (in her case it is help for people with mental illness). If you don't agree that her primary agenda is important and needs to be acted upon NOW (no matter the cost, effectiveness, or effect on personal liberty) then you are mean, unfeeling and stingy. Her analysis was mostly anecdotes, and her solutions were a few impractical ideas with a lot of hand waving. And pointing out the shortcomings in her "solutions" was interpreted as a personal attack and trying to play "gotcha."
That attempted discussion brought home to me a lot of the things I've read about liberals. They aren't interested in working out practical, well thought out, targeted solutions. They want vindication for their points of view, reassurance that their feelings are valid, and support for their hope that things can be (somehow) better. Think about Bill Clinton's successful phrase, "I feel your pain." Or Obama's Hope and Change. It isn't the solution that is important, it is that their opinions are validated and supported.
Trying to have that "civil, intelligent" discourse with a liberal is like telling a parent their child is a bully. They don't want to believe you, won't believe you, and will immediately get defensive.