The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
I think a few minor adjustments are in order:
"If you don’t have anything nice to say about me, you must refrain from criticizing anything I choose to do or say to you.
If anything I do or say to you makes you angry, it proves you are a hateful person.
If you cannot accept what I do or say to you, it means you are closed-minded.
There. Now it sounds completely right to me.
And, of course,
"YOU are responsible for whatever changes MY internal mental state make as a result of being exposed to your actions. If I am disatisfied with my internal mental state, YOU must alter your actions until I am satisfied with said mental state."
Those are pretty much the behaviors of a spoiled child. Surprise, surprise.
Pretty much the behavior of the spoiled kid who lives on the other side of my fence and screeches a paint-blistering scream whenever it wants something...
This so off base I don't even know where to begin.
OK, Mark, start anyplace at random then. Come on, show us who any part of it is off base.
Bear in mind that in this case "liberal" = "Leftist" - not "traditional liberal" in the meaning of "in favor of individual rights and liberties" like it used to mean before Leftists co-opted the term.
Please Mark, please define the basis of a liberal, "social justice" worldview. Because I don't know what it is beyond a two-year old banging their sippy cup on the table and screaming "Gimme!".
In all seriousness, I wish someone could define "liberal" or "progressive" to me. I can (and do) possess facets that would be considered liberal (I am not uncompassionate to others) but at the same time, I expect responsibility and some degree of honest and integrity in return, not a demand for more.
By most liberals thinking, I am a far-right conservative because of certain views. Funny, I didn't think the idea that my tax dollars should be given to others who haven't earned it as a bad thing. I figured most people, who were getting their pocket picked by a criminal and then have criminal having the chutzpah to say that they deserved it "because...", would have a problem with that.
A definition would be nice because I've been looking for one and I can't find it.
The picture that is painted of a liberal, like the one listed in this post, is a complete distortion of reality. It's an extreme example of people who I actually find to be irratating as well. Just as people have a bias against people who own guns and distort what they are like, the same holds true for what folks think liberals are like.
I have had that bias against people who own guns. I don't anymore because it's wrong. Flat out wrong. Just as it is wrong to paint all liberals as being this way.
Liberals believe in right and wrong. They believe there is good and evil in the world. Sometimes they define it in the same way conservatives do and sometimes they don't.
Liberals themselves don't always agree with each other...just as conservatives don't always agree as well. There are close minded liberals and close minded conservatives. I was recently accused of being too broad minded on this blog. I thought about that one for awhile. Perhaps I am.
I could eat up Haloscan with thoughts on social justice. People in this country are working their butts off and getting paid shit and you are bitching about your tax dollars? What about theirs? And they still can't afford health care?
Seriously, you guys need to get off the MYTH that the welfare queen is driving a Cadillac. That world is gone forever, my friends. And you know who got rid of it? He who shall not be named (President from 1992-2000)
Everyone in this country needs to work. Period. That's what I believe. That's what "liberals" believe as well. No one gets free handouts.
Lyle is a genius, and Markadelphia is about one think-cycle away from being a gunowner!
Power to the people!
"No one gets free handouts."
Markadelphia: That last sentence is where you began the healing process. You just talked yourself into being a conservative, or what used to be called a liberal and now must be qualified as a "Jeffersonian Liberal".
Just keep repeating it to yourself:
No one gets free handouts.
No one gets free handouts.
No one gets free handouts…
Until you believe it and will support that as a basis for government policy.
(You have also discovered that this is not about Democrats and Republicans, as you give Bubba credit for welfare reform.)
You can always give as much to charity as you like. You may convince others to do the same, and more power to you. You may also put your capital at risk by starting your own business, and then pay your workers as much as you like. This is what we refer to as "Liberty" and its economic incarnation, Capitalism.
Its when Uncle Sam is saying "Give, or else!" that we have fallen from grace. You can modify or bury the threats, and you can rationalize them by saying your neighbor has "more then he needs" but property rights are property rights, and the initiation of force is the initiation of force.
Like a tired, old, diseased whore with too much makeup, no matter how you dress it up, and no matter how much makeup you slather over it, socialism is still a tired, old, diseased whore. It looks really nice when young, to the young and uninitiated, but it will ruin you.
Welcome to the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy! Once you receive your super-secret decoder ring, set it, for the Month of September, to "Tango".
Thanks guys. I do admit that I have some conservative ideas in me. You would all revel in the shock and horror that other parents reveal when I...(gasp) actually discipline my children at Target. Or (double gasp)discipline my students!
I don't think that what I am saying is anything new, though. Or "liberal" or "conservative." We all have to contribute. If you want to lay on your ass and eat Cheetos all day, we won't have time for you. If you want to work, if you want to contribute, if you want to make the world a better place, then you DESERVE the basic ammenities of life. That is all I am saying.
Take a read at JFK's innaguaral address.
"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for youask what you can do for your country."
"My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."
These are the words I live by and these as well...
"Get involved in an issue that you're passionate about. It almost doesn’t matter what it is--improving the school system, developing strategies to wean ourselves off foreign oil, expanding health care for kids. We give too much of our power away, to the professional politicians, to the lobbyists, to cynicism. And our democracy suffers as a result."
"When you focus on solving problems instead of scoring political points, and emphasize common sense over ideology, you'd be surprised what can be accomplished. It also helps if you're willing to give other people credit--something politicians have a hard time doing sometimes."
Barack Obama 2006.
The sincere left-liberal is fixated on the production of a certain set of outcomes. That those outcomes can only occur momentarily, and at the price of a totalitarian control of society that's never been achieved in human history, is either incomprehensible or insignificant to him.
But the important part is this: those outcomes are, in the left-liberal's eyes, a moral mandate. Therefore, anyone who suggests that they're unachievable, or that the only means to those ends are inherently evil, must himself be evil. It is therefore permissible to the liberal to destroy his opposition by any means expedient.
Sounds a bit like Islam, doesn't it?
I would suggest that if you think they are unachievable than you are a cynic. From time to time, I feel the same way. I look at our culture right now...our obsession with people like Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan....how your average person's eyes glaze over when you start talking about our debt to China and I, too, feel it is impossible.
But then I think about my kids and my students and then I know that at least I have to try. Inspiring someone is easy, though. Motivating someone is an all together different animal.
To avoid talking at cross-purposes, what is it you think is achievable?
I saw Markadelphia's comment about his students, and I feel compelled to add my own.
I am a high school teacher in TX, and I am happy to say that there are a surprising number of teachers who are either conservative, libertarian, or sympathetic to many of our viewpoints.
A surprising number of firearms afficionados, though it is TX after all...
Hey Spear, same thing at my school. We have a wide variety of political viewpoints..left, right and everything in between. And the students want to hear all sides of the issue and that's what we teach.
This being Minnesota, nearly all of the staff own firerms for hunting.
Sarah, I think that Gene Rodenberry's vision of the future is achievable. It's going to take a lot but I do think it is possible. People need to believe in themselves though and right now, they don't. That is a short answer to a long question which I'm sure I will add onto as I continue to post here. If you think it is too trite, let me know, and I will try to expand slighly without eating up Haloscan.
I would like you to cogitate on one very important point. As much as you disagree with Lyle's description of the Left/liberal mindset, a very large portion of the American population sees it very much the same way.
Stereotypes become stereotypes for a reason.
True. And that's why I am done stereotyping anyone. Or at least I am trying to be done but it's hard when I hear conservatives saying this stuff over and over again about liberals when it's just not true.
Mark, did you ever read The Daily Kos? On there, you can find any number of people who proudly wear the label "liberal" and behave exactly as Say Uncle and Ed have described. As Kevin noted, stereotypes become stereotypes for a reason.
No, I don't read the Daily Kos. For the same reason I don't listen to Sean Hannity. Flip between Air America or the Patriot and, at times, they will say the exact same thing about the government, the media, out citizenry etc...
I don't like how people accept their news from sources that are comfortable to them. Huffington Post is a great example of this...the Daily Brief...what does it all mean? Nothing really and I agree with some of what they say.
I pine and yearn for the days of Walter and Edward...
"I pine and yearn for the days of Walter and Edward..."
I don't. I'm ecstatic that the traditional gatekeepers to what is and isn't "news" have been bypassed.
"I'm ecstatic that the traditional gatekeepers to what is and isn't "news" have been bypassed."
"No, I don't read the Daily Kos."
That means you don't have any grounds to contradict my statement that:
"On there, you can find any number of people who proudly wear the label "liberal" and behave exactly as Say Uncle and Ed have described."
And they are among the most vocal of the breed. Of such are stereotypes cast.
I pine and yearn for the days of Walter and Edward...
Are you referring to Walter Cronkite? The man who told America that the total, crushing defeat of the Viet Cong in 1968 was a victory for the Communists? That Walter Cronkite?
DJ, liberals like the folks on the Daily Kos are just as bad as folks like Hannity and Limbaugh. Their criticisms, some of which are probably valid, exist only to counter the insane, idealogical rants of Bushies. By setting themselves up as the alternative to that, they then become that which they despise. And thus, aren't any better. That is why I don't read them.
But I have to admit I used to be like that. Occasionaly I fall of the wagon and sterotype as well but that's largely due to the fantasy that has been our government for the last nine years. I guess it really started with Monica Lewinsky...but that's a topic of another day.
Tet, Mark, I am talking abou the 1968 Tet offensive. You know, the 3 years' worth of planning, sneak attack on a religious holiday by the Communists of Vietnam?
The one, that after 3 years of planning, and near total surprise netted the Commies 4500 dead US and RSVN troops at the cost of 45,000 NVA and Viet Cong. The campaign that more or less removed the Viet Cong from the war? That crushing defeat of the Communists. But I am sure that you thought the Communists won Tet.
The only place the NVA won in Tet was in US news rooms, and in Walter Cronkite's head.
Read good ole' Walt's words - http://www.alvernia.edu/cgi-bin/mt/text/archives/000194.html - and see how he told America that we COULD NOT WIN in Vietnam. He tells us to abandon our allies to the tender mercies of the Communists.
He tells Americans in Feb. 1968 that the Soviets will use nuclear weapons to defend North Vietnam. Where is his evidence for this?
Did we win or lose in Vietnam?
See, I know where this is going, ok? This the part where you say that Walter Cronkite was a Commie doing the bidding of the VC. How long will it be until Jane Fonda comes into the conversation? John Kerry?
We lost in Vietnam. The more important question is "Why?"
Hint: It wasn't because they defeated us militarily.
I'm a liberal. Do I appear that way to you?
If you're addressing me with that question, Guav, I'd say probably not. But then I have to ask if you see yourself as a Leftist. (See the seventh comment, authored by me.)
I consider myself to be a "traditional liberal." There are still a lot of us out there. In fact, there are a lot of people who do not match the stereotype Lyle wrote about - but the ones who overwhelmingly make up the nut-roots are that stereotype.
Do you consider yourself a Kossack? Do you spend a lot of time at Democratic Underground agreeing with the groupthink there?
If you truly, truly,
See, I know where this is going, ok?
knew that, then we wouldn't have to keep trying to get you to stick to historical fact.
You don't, in fact, know where "we're going". That's quite obvious (except to you), and your attempts to use that as a ad-hom on your side further undercut the policy arguments you wish to make.
Wishing Unca Walter would tell you how that is, well, it's a comforting thought.
Unless you know what Unca Walter didn't exactly tell the unvarnished truth. Or the story. Or even mitigate his reporting....
But we do. We know that Tet was the end of the Vietnam war. Or would have been. That's where we're going with that. That we know that Unca Walter might have been soothing, but he wasn't someone you'd want to actually follow his advice if you wanted good, dependable government action.
"Occasionaly I fall of the wagon and sterotype as well ..."
No, it's not "occasional." You continually stereotype those who support what President Bush has done in response to 9/11.
"... but that's largely due to the fantasy that has been our government for the last nine years."
Don't try to blame your behavior on others. You are responsible for your own behavior, teacher.
I definitely lean more to the left than the right, if that's what you're asking.
Only been to Democratic Underground twice while following links, but I have DailyKos in my RSS reader. I don't read the comments or diaries there, but I'm pretty in line with the main entries (although I certainly would never call myself a "Kossack" or any other name that would affiliate me with any particular blogthat seems a bit silly).
I'm highly critical of the current administration, but I'm not overly enamored with any of the current Democratic candidates (are any of them pro-2A?) and I voted 3rd Party in 2004.
I encounter #3, 4 and 5 of the above traits just as often with conservatives as I do liberals thoughit just depends on the topic.
I don't believe I'm particularly unreasonable, and I don't think the above traits fit me at all, or any of the other liberals I know. Then again, liberals in general are probably far more reasonable than their internet-comment-posting counterparts, and I'm guessing that's the same for conservatives.
You brought up the question of whether we won or lost in Vietnam. The obvious answer is that we lost.
I would still like to hear your theory about why we lost.