Since the far left has taken over the country, and is hellbent on turning it socialist and quite possibly bankrupt, it's probably a good idea that we take a closer look at liberals and liberalism. I've come across some good articles that give insight into their mindset. Be forewarned, you might find such thinking disturbing.
We'll start our research with the account of a former liberal. What better way to get into the mind of a liberal than with a tour given by a former liberal...
American Thinker's resident recovering liberal answers readers.
Dear Robin:
How can we trust that you are really who you say you are? How do we know you are not a liberal impersonating a conservative?
Marty
Hi Marty:
Busted! My articles are actually ghostwritten by Bill Ayers.
Don't sweat it, Mart-T, my conscientious editor at American Thinker, a Bay Area guy, has met and vetted me. So I'm for real. Anyway, dude, do you think I could make this stuff up?
* *
Dear Robin:
What draws otherwise smart people to being a progressive liberal? How do they accept the generalized hate?
Julia
Hey Julia:
Let me speak for myself here.
My liberal turn on's: (This is like Match.com)
1. It was exciting: I was a bored, lost suburban kid growing up in a secular Jewish home with no direction to speak of. I spent too much time alone watching TV. My parents were heavy drinkers and partiers, and my brother hated me from the day I was born and made my life a living hell. So, it wasn't a blast, and when I got into my teens, I numbed it all out with drugs. Doing political work in young adulthood, I suddenly had a purpose, a reason to get up in the morning. Working with others in groups, marching with thousands of people, was not only an emotional high but a physical thrill, almost like an aphrodisiac. A legal high. And feeling like you're saving the world is positively orgasmic.
2. The Left is seen as cool. The Right is viewed as stodgy, dull, and selfish. Franken is cool. Newt is not. And many of us drawn to the Left were unpopular, lonely children. By being far left, a bunch of misfits can fit in.
3. It was all I knew. Info in Liberalville is censored and you believe what you hear. It becomes a form of brainwashing. And everyone around me was Left. We're pack animals and tend to follow the herd, for better or for worse.
4. Being progressive (what a high falootin' word) makes you feel good about yourself: generous, altruistic, ever loving and accepting (even though they wish terminal diseases on conservatives). "We can save the world, rearrange the world, it's dying to get better." (Crosby, Still, etc.) Who can argue with that ego trip:?
OK, now for turn off's:
1. Frankly, there have been a lot of things that have bugged the crap out of me for years (maybe this was why it was easier for me to wake up). The rampant street crime and aggressive panhandling are totally out of control. And liberals excusing antisocial behavior ("He didn't mean to beat the living daylights out of that little old lady, he is a victim of white privilege, blah blah blah,") makes me want to hurl. They need their own recovery program for mega codependency (LibCo?).
2. The Left portrays itself as mellow and chill, but bigger control freaks you have never seen in your life. The Berkeley laws are draconian. Try finding a parking lot since none are available; cars are the devil's handiwork. The city restricts business licenses (again, to keep out those bloody cars) so I had to open my office in a nearby town. And light up a cigarette and watch a menacing crowd encircle you; Berkeley has outlawed smoking in almost every outdoor locale.
I can go on and on. . . But you get the point. Big Brother is alive and well in Berkeley, though he's traveling high on the hog via Air Force One these days.
3. The mean stuff. I just don't do mean. Love Ellen, Detest Janeane. Even when I was a liberal, I was nice one (by Berkeley, though not Alabama, standards). And my spiritual faith compels me to treat others with respect. But even though I'm nice, I'm not sweet. I don't put up with crap. But I'm generally nice about it.
So, looking back, the seeds of conservatism were in me all along. And when I got older and wiser, the party got meaner and greener (don't get me started on the green fascism out here). I can't speak for every liberal but this is my tale. In the end, humans are rather simple creatures. We stay with the familiar until it becomes unbearable and we have another option. Liberalism didn't work for me anymore. Let's hope many others reach the same conclusion by 2010.
* *
Dear Robin:
I don't forgive you. You indoctrinated our young people.
Phil
Yo Phil:
No worries. I never worked at the university or any other schools. And, anyway, you don't have to indoctrinate people in Berkeley. Everyone drinks from the same Kool-Aid.
* *
Dear Robin:
Ooh, get me a tissue box. You and your readers are weak.
Sam
Hey Sam:
I have three responses to your letter. One: it's offensive and unseemly to mock my readers and me.
Two: your being so hostile to strangers makes me sad. Clearly one or both of your parents disrespected you and trampled on your feelings.
My upbringing was like that so I can relate. But I responded by never wanting to inflict the same type of pain on others. Take my word for it, Sam. It's much cooler to be kind.
Third: Bro, it's my party and I'll cry if I want to.
* *
Dear Robin:
You couldn't have been a liberal because you have a sense of humor.
Liz
Hello, Lizzy:
Funny you should say this! My motto in life is an old Wavy Gravy quote (no I wasn't at Woodstock): If you don't have a sense of humor, it's not funny!
The Left has become way too serious and sanctimonious for my tastes. But it wasn't always that way. I recently rented the first season of Maude, a show I enjoyed in my youth. I was astonished at how Maude, the white liberal, is affectionately teased throughout for her preachy white guilt. When she goes shopping for a "maid" (that's what they called them then), she insists on hiring a black one to "help" some needy person. When the confident Florida shows up, Maude is so condescending that Florida quits. Florida explains, "I'd rather work for a racist than a white liberal because at least racists won't try to change me." They reconcile, of course, and Florida is a major player on the show, reflecting back to Maude her patronizing ways. The lesson back then to whites: lighten up and laugh at yourself. And be very careful that your crusade for social justice isn't just another form of white arrogance.
If this show ran today, it wouldn't have lasted one episode (the Left would have rioted). And yet it was a runaway hit in the 1970's. Watching it bummed me out. How far we've come, or we've sunk, courtesy of the Thought Police. And liberals say conservatives are uptight and boring!
(By the way, there's a new summer replacement comedy called The Goode Family on ABC on Wednesday at 9 pm which pokes fun at the liberal, PC Police. Irreverent and refreshing. I give it a month at best before the network pulls it in fear of the wrath of Big O.)
Later. . . Robin
A frequent contributor to American Thinker, Robin is a recovering liberal marooned in Berkeley and a psychotherapist in private practice. . She'd like to thank American Thinker readers for their helpful, generous, and kind comments.
Everybody's looking for something... Some of them want to abuse you Some of them want to be abused Sweet dreams are made of these Who am I to disagree? - Eurythmics
Contemporary liberals, having abandoned the belief in God-given inalienable rights, masochistically crave a worldly master. This master is a sadistic god-substitute who will provide the stern discipline needed to force economic equality and "fairness" by requiring painful sacrifices and bestowing government-created rights onto obedient and acquiescent groups of left-leaning masochists.
Of course, I am not referring to the sexual variety of masochism, but rather the recognized psychosis of moral masochism. Large segments of the population, and even entire nations can suffer from this illness as described in Daniel Rancour-Laferriere's book, "The Slave Soul of Russia: Moral Masochism and the Cult of Suffering".
First, some re-definitions: In the same derogatory fashion liberals refer to contemporary Conservatives as "neocons", I will label this group as "neolibs" going forward. I feel this is appropriate, as the Liberal movement has taken a decidedly leftward leap and become more radicalized in their outward behavior in the last few years, and is therefore a new phenomenon.
In most conservative writing (Thomas Sowell, Ayn Rand, and more recently Mark Levin) the common theme is the sanctity of individual freedom and liberty. The conservative is an individualist and an independent thinker, as opposed to those who primarily identify themselves as members of a group. The term "conservative" is a misnomer for this philosophy, as it connotes a preservation of the status quo, or even a "regressive" yin to the "Progressive" yang. This is why I believe a more appropriate label for conservative philosophy is "individualist", and I will refer to it in this manner for the remainder of this article.
Next, a pop-psychology primer: individualists gravitate toward existential thinking, or a view of the world where individuals have complete freedom of choice and take full responsibility for the results of those choices. This mandates that choices must be made with a logical evaluation to determine the potential consequences. The impartial evaluation of phenomena to determine the truth is an offshoot of existentialism known as phenomenology. The phenomenologist is rational and emotionally detached from the subject of analysis, eliminating judgment and perception. Once the perceptions of reality are stripped away as much as possible, the phenomenologist then attempts to perform an insightful analysis of the object to determine what is real or "true". I believe that many individualists tend to be effective phenomenologists due to their ability to separate themselves from group-think and emotional judgment. Therefore, let's use the phenomenological process to analyze the "Neolib as masochist" theory.
In our first analysis, we will impartially examine Neolib behavior. Objectively listen to Janeane Garofalo in the Youtube video linked to her name. In listening to neolibs such as Janeane speak, it is evident that they appear to be driven predominantly by emotion rather than logic. Just reviewing an alphabetical list of emotions, as extracted from a list in Wikipedia, lends itself to describing neolib behavior:
Anyone who views the world through these emotions would naturally feel threatened when interpreting individualists' behavior. The neolib typically projects hatred, bigotry, selfishness, and greed onto the individualist when there is no physical evidence to support the interpretation. The strong passions exhibited by neolibs, coupled with delusions of persecution, foster these masochistic tendencies.
Now let's objectively review the initiatives in the neolib agenda: Environmentalism, global passivism, overpopulation, socialized healthcare, and promoting government intervention into all aspects of life. All of these priorities require individuals to sacrifice their lifestyles, their income, and/or their basic comforts.
This past week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi exhorted, "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory..." in order to sacrifice ourselves to the gods of global warming. As presidential candidate Obama said, "We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times..." He seems to indicate that he wants us to starve and freeze.
Most of these initiatives involve the inflicting of pain and misery. Tom Daschle, in his book "Critical: What We Can Do About The Health Care Crisis" says health-care reform "will not be pain free" and that seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of having them treated. In other words, you will suffer a slow agonizing death under government mandate.
As a final phenomenological exercise, impassively observe the level of neolib support for this agenda. It has not appeared to wane. In fact, neolib fervor continues to increase as the promised level of suffering increases.
According to Rancour-Laferriere, increasing Russian masochism coincided with the rise of the Soviet Union and Communism, although it was pervasive in the soul of Russia prior to that. The conclusion to this analysis is that as neolib moral masochism increases, so does the emotional need for an all-powerful master to govern them. As the governing master becomes more dominant and disciplinarian, the masochism is reinforced and the spiral continues.
Is there a cure? Self-destructive behavior is very difficult to overcome. Many years ago in an Abnormal Psychology class, I studied the case of a group of young adults who would continually pound their heads against a wall until they became bloody pulps. Psychologists found that the only thing that would interrupt their behavior was a 9,000 volt shock from a cattle prod.
This is probably an impractical solution. Since 45% of the nation thinks we are going in the right direction, there are too many neolibs and too few cattle prods.
I don't know if Liberals want a master, but the do want a savior. They see what they define as problems, and want someone to fix it - to save them from this peril.
To a Liberal, the government is the solution to whatever problem you have. If something's not right, it must need regulation. If it moves, tax it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.
Pretty long reads and I will admit I just skimmed over them, but going too far in either direction is never a good thing. While in a case of one extreme being predominat--the opposite certainly offsets it somewhat, I believe over the long term, it is better to have a very large majority somewhere closer to the center. That way, both sides benefit, and neither gets harmed much. Having a paradigm that is so far to either side, that constitutional questions abound daily, is counter-productive over the long haul..
I don't know if Liberals want a master, but the do want a savior. They see what they define as problems, and want someone to fix it - to save them from this peril.
To a Liberal, the government is the solution to whatever problem you have. If something's not right, it must need regulation. If it moves, tax it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.
That reminds me of something from Glenn Beck's daily email:
Government is stepping in to solve a problem that came from a government solution to a problem that the government created. Yes, that's what happens when you go socialist and have government's sticky fingers on everything -- even more problems than you started with. Glenn reviews the story of the FBI 'bracing' for the inevitable massive fraud heading our way with TARP and stimulus money.
Dear friends, family, loved ones, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, my brother in law, Sam, and my cousin Joe: I am sorry and you were right.
These are not easy words for anyone to utter, much less a leftist from Berkeley, or a recovering leftist, that is. Even though I've been in recovery for 14 months, 2 weeks, and 3 days, leftists are always right in your face, in an I-hate-you-if-you-disagree sort of way. Hence, this letter of amends to all the people I've lectured, scolded, ranted and raved at, and otherwise annoyed during my 30 plus years of "progressive" politics.
My recovery program urges a fierce moral inventory, a cleansing of heart and mind (kind of like a "forgiveness tour" but without the scary dictators), so here goes:
To my brother in law, Sam, for blasting you in that Chinese restaurant for voting for Reagan, mea culpa.
To my cousin Joe for calling you a traitor when you became an MBA, started holding a real job (as opposed to most of us Berkeley types who are psychotherapists, massage therapists and aromatherapists), and became a conservative, my bad.
To my goddaughter whom I told when she was l0 years old that Republicans were bad, Democrats were good (yes I really did say this), and who got confused and tearful because she lives in a suburb where most people are Republicans, kid, what in the world was I thinking?
To my leftist friends, with whom I agreed that 9/ll was the US's fault, you and I were all such jerks.
To those potential friends whom I dumped when I found out you were conservative, your gain is my loss.
To all those columnists and editors whom I harangued with angry letters and e mails, sorry, sorry, sorry.
And finally to me, Robin, for installing you for the last 27 years in the far left cult of the People's Republic of Berkeley, where Patty Hearst was kidnapped by the SLA, where the Black Panthers had their violent beginnings and the heads of the Black Muslims are jailed for murder and rape, my apologies, girl.
I didn't know any better. I thought the whole world lived in areas where the streets are filthy, aggressive street behavior is allowed because the perps are victims of capitalism, and where you can easily get mugged walking down a street or eating in a restaurant at noon. (By the way, with the Left in charge, expect gangs, crime, indoctrination of 5 year olds and general anarchy to be coming soon to a neighborhood near you.)
Given that the media is pretty much censored (good luck finding a conservative book in your local "independent" book store or hearing a Republican speak anywhere), you didn't know that a party of grown ups even existed that didn't advocate screaming at others as the preferred mode of communication. So to my dear Robin, apologies for what I put you through, what I deprived you of, and my pledge to do better.
Cousin Joe, Sam, et al, you may be wondering how I did a l80 in 1 1/2 years. How did I go from a rabid, sanctimonious liberal whom you steadfastly avoided at family gatherings to a fan of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage? Recovery encourages us to share our story, so here's mine:
In February of 2008, I saw a new client, a bright and sensitive young woman who came in looking like she just escaped a war zone. In some ways she had; she had innocently shared with others at her job that she voted for Hillary rather than Obama. Immediately she was being targeted for abuse that put her in fear for not only her job, but her life.
We both suddenly became aware that something had grown really dark in the Democratic Party. I started hearing about many other incidents where loyal Democrats were being physically and emotionally threatened for supporting Hillary. A woman in Berkeley had her front window broken because it displayed a poster of Hillary. Randi Rhodes, an Air America talk show leftist, called Hillary a f______ witch. (Rhodes was recently promoted to a national talk radio show, illustrating another disturbing trend: the deafening silence about what Rush Limbaugh has dubbed the new "thug-ocracy.)
An acquaintance had her car broken into, and the only item stolen was a NoObama bumper sticker. A South Park episode featured an episode where a nuclear weapon was being aimed at Hillary's genitals. My local greeting card store sold very flattering cards about Obama, insulting ones about Hillary, and a Hillary "nutcracker." When I complained, the young male manager literally laughed in my face.
Things went from bad to worse when Sarah Palin entered the scene. When Geraldine Ferraro ran for Vice President, there was no debasement of her character, no sexual threats. But with Palin, a full scale "wilding" ensued that chillingly reminded me of the random sexual attacks on women by gangs of men in New York. She was called every vile name in the book by both male and female liberals.
Actress Sarah Bernhardt hoped a gang of black males would rape her. When Palin's church was torched with children inside, the press was missing in action (somehow I imagine the press would have been all over this if Obama's church were torched). Not only was the misogyny disgusting, but the classism was abhorrent. The Democrats, by ridiculing Palin's voice and her education, were acting like arrogant snobs. The party had changed, I had changed, and the differences looked irreconcilable.
The final straw for me was when a close friend flew into a rage at me when she learned I wasn't supporting Obama. The political became personal when she began impugning my character. Worse yet, she tried to intimidate me into changing my mind by threatening to dump me.
Suddenly a light went on. The peace and love and flower power of the old left was dead and gone (if it even existed to begin with except in my imagination). The Democrats had morphed into a power hungry Thought Police, and I was done with them. My new motto in life: don't PC on me.
So this is my letter of amends, and I hope that I can be forgiven by all whom I've offended. I knew not what the heck I was doing. But now the problem is: how in the world does one be a conservative these days? How to stay brave and committed when conservatives are being targeted, punished, and shunned on a daily basis? How to sleep at night knowing that the country I have finally come to love may be destroyed from within by a massive Big Brother government?
I guess I'll just have to do a step one, as we 12 stepper's call it, and turn it all over to my Higher Power.
Yep, every "Liberal", (aka anyone left of Karl Rove) is exactly the same. I'm sure that makes it simpler to understand when you can paint anyone who disagrees with you with broad strokes. There is no compromising, there are no shades of grey.
That reminds me of something from Glenn Beck's daily email:
Government is stepping in to solve a problem that came from a government solution to a problem that the government created. Yes, that's what happens when you go socialist and have government's sticky fingers on everything -- even more problems than you started with. Glenn reviews the story of the FBI 'bracing' for the inevitable massive fraud heading our way with TARP and stimulus money.
Yep, every "Liberal", (aka anyone left of Karl Rove) is exactly the same. I'm sure that makes it simpler to understand when you can paint anyone who disagrees with you with broad strokes. There is no compromising, there are no shades of grey.
It's not that all leftists are exactly the same, it is just that you people want exactly the same. Same goes for the right.
Leftists want surety.
Rightist want liberty.
I believe that leftism is just the weakest of the choices. It is definably for weak-minded, non-working, pansy ass parasites of our society. Are all leftist like that? No, but most are.
[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 06-03-2009).]
Interesting how *I* am accused of painting broad strokes, and so on. I'm posting articles by someone who WAS a leftist, and who knows them and their philosophy.
Since the far left has taken over the country, and is hellbent on turning it socialist and quite possibly bankrupt, it's probably a good idea that we take a closer look at liberals and liberalism. I've come across some good articles that give insight into their mindset. Be forewarned, you might find such thinking disturbing. ......
lol - nice start - um - we start with the fact that it was bankrupted prior to Obama and his liberals.... but, feel free to continue spewing that kinda junk
but - yes - I agree 100% that the current maniacs in charge aint gonna help the crappile left by the previous administration....
February 14, 2009 The Law Liberals Always Break By C. Edmund Wright
There's a law that liberals always shatter. (And no, I'm not talking about tax law.) It's the law of unintended consequences. Actually it's not so much liberals per se that break it so much as it seems liberal thinking by definition always runs afoul of this law. Leftist policy always hangs itself if given enough rope.
The liberals now have the entire stage with a very liberal President, extreme leftists in control of Congress, and the main stream media. Liberal failure has nowhere to hide and no one to hide behind. So as the Obama administration attempts to attack the country's economic woes, they find themselves stepping in one pile of liberal policy do-do after another. You might say that the left hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. The world will have to watch as liberal policy for problem A destroys Obama goals for problem B and so on.
Consider: with Obama, Reid and Pelosi screaming for the country to accept a ridiculous stimulus package to create jobs, jobs, jobs -- liberals in Chicago are standing in the way of a Wal-Mart Super Center that would bring in construction and retail jobs to the messiah's hometown. By the way, liberals will also keep the lowest cost provider of food and clothes and home goods from being accessed by hurting Chicagoans.
The reason? The liberal principle of protecting union jobs at all costs. Remember, behind every economic disaster is a powerful union. And sometimes a community organizer.
Which leads to another example. Union jobs at the big three auto makers have been supported for years by the high priced and high profit SUVs and pick up trucks. Of course, liberal environmentalists have long made the SUV a target, while limiting domestic energy production. Greenies are doing everything they can to destroy the SUV, and with it, many union jobs, and almost succeeded during the last energy price spike.
Oh, and should we mention the fact that those oil rig jobs that pay a ton of money to mostly union members cannot be had here thanks to drilling restrictions in this country? The Russians and Venezuelans send their thanks to American liberals.
But it gets better. This contradiction, which has been predictable for anyone with some linear thinking ability, has escaped the minds of millions of Michigan voters educated by the liberal-controlled public school system. They have for decades voted for politicians illogically holding pro-green yet pro-UAW positions simultaneously. Voters of that very liberal state have no one to blame but themselves. They voted themselves out of an economy over a period of years. This is the state where Obama went to pick up a good share of his economic advisors. No wonder it is home to the Detroit Lions.
Meanwhile, back in Washington and New York, liberals in Congress and in the media are having a field day chastising corporations for buying jets, hiring contractors to renovate posh office suites, and giving big bonuses to executives.
Well guess what? Buying jets, hiring upper end contractors and giving bonuses stimulate the economy. It is job friendly. And that's what we need now, right? Oops. More liberal fertilizer. Liberalism simply cannot get out of its own way. Especially hurt is lefty New York, where the economy is reeling from a number of factors.
But of course, the liberal tenet of wealth envy is paramount to common sense. And apparently, to jobs. Speaking of which, if you break down the Starbucks corporate jet issue, it is especially delicious with unintended consequences.
The coffee purveyor, you remember, was mercilessly raked across the media's coals for taking delivery on a 45 million dollar jet while it was closing stores and laying off barristas. So they cancelled the jet order.
Think about that. Starbuck's deposit on the jet was lost, which is foolish under any circumstances. Further, that jet is now back "on the showroom floor" so to speak, reducing by one the need to manufacture such planes. So to keep some "hamburger flipper" type jobs that liberals make fun of, many high paying jet manufacturing jobs were lost. The only thing stimulating about that equation is the Starbucks caffeine.
And we could go on like this simply with stories from today's headlines. It's a fact of life. Liberal policies in action always cave in on themselves. They always have.
Take liberal Neville Chamberlain and his appeasement of Hitler in the 30's. We must have "peace in our time." How did that work out? It took a violent victory, not a phony peace, to bring lasting peace. The peace effort led to a stronger Hitler and ultimately millions more deaths than "war mongering" policies would have led to.
Look back at 9-11. Some thirty years of liberal policies regarding intelligence gathering, intelligence sharing and prosecuting terrorists led to an attack that killed three thousand Americans in, well, two of the nations' most liberal cities. You cannot say this in polite company, but statistically some 90% of the victims likely voted for the policies that led to the dreadful day. Shhhhh.
Think about abortion. The feminist movement has called this a women's issue. It is defined as the ultimate right for women. Fine. The result? The most likely fetus on the planet to be aborted is a female in China. That's women's rights we can believe in, right? Talk about the circle of life -- er -- death.
Consider school choice. This issue is demagogued by the teachers' unions above all else. These are unions who are obsessed with raising teacher pay. What would be the teacher pay result of a broad school choice program? It would be the equivalent of "free agency" for good teachers and administrators. Think about what free agency has done for pay for athletes. Another circular liberal firing squad in action.
Take California's government cash meltdown. The main culprit is retiree benefits for unionized government workers in the state. And of course, the result is that current unionized government workers are being laid off, furloughed and not hired. More liberal on liberal crime.
And let's not forget Europe and their coddling of Islamists for decades. Their payback is a near takeover of European society by gangs and street violence, not to mention ridiculous rules and regulations in airports and schools and other public places.
Liberalism's failure is universal because liberalism embraces a false view of human nature as perfectible, if only the right political arrangements exist . And it would be funny, except that the consequences are so devastating to so many people. And so often the victims are the very liberals the policy was supposed to protect.
The only good news is this: with liberal Democrats front and center on all stages governmental now, they will be opposed by a much more formidable foe than a Republican President and a Congress dying to just get along. They will be opposed by the obvious truth of their bankrupt philosophy.
look, I dont like the self loathing weenies either - but - c'mon - this is so wildly assinine this is as accurate as when I say the "Taliban" is right and conservative yes, it is 100% true and correct - but it is WHOLLY just to put something offensive into the pile so - do you or dont you think women should be in Burkas? no? YOU are a liberal. ta-da that easy.
"for us or against us" is this really what you are down to? you cannot think on your own?
but, I suppose it is easy to be sucked up by all the dogma & propoganda - on both sides
lol - nice start - um - we start with the fact that it was bankrupted prior to Obama and his liberals.... but, feel free to continue spewing that kinda junk
but - yes - I agree 100% that the current maniacs in charge aint gonna help the crappile left by the previous administration....
Bush was digging us in a hole. When the Dems won the majority in 2006, Pelosi got a bigger shovel.
Obama's brining in the heavy earth moving equipment. You have not begun to see how bankrupt this country will become.
Originally posted by Formula88: Bush was digging us in a hole. When the Dems won the majority in 2006, Pelosi got a bigger shovel.
Obama's brining in the heavy earth moving equipment. You have not begun to see how bankrupt this country will become.
well, I would say Clinton dug the hole - and Bush just ignrored it as it slowly sucked - and - yes - Obama is a whole different league of maniac. but, lets stick to stereotyping humanity into 2 groups.....
lol - nice start - um - we start with the fact that it was bankrupted prior to Obama and his liberals.... but, feel free to continue spewing that kinda junk
but - yes - I agree 100% that the current maniacs in charge aint gonna help the crappile left by the previous administration....
Just a note, but the "crappile" you mention has grown immensely due to the current maniacs actions. And it wasn't "necessary" in order to fix anything the previous administration "did." The bills the current administration has pushed contain so much garbage spending it's not funny is all...
well, I would say Clinton dug the hole - and Bush just ignrored it as it slowly sucked - and - yes - Obama is a whole different league of maniac. but, lets stick to stereotyping humanity into 2 groups.....
On Sept. 11, 2003, the Bush administration proposed to Congress a new agency under the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie and Freddie. The new agency would have had the authority to set capital-reserve requirements, veto new lines of business and determine whether the two quasi-government lenders were adequately managing the risk of their ballooning portfolios.
When former Treasury Secretary John Snow pleaded for Frank to support Fannie and Freddie reform, Frank responded: "These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Essentially, Bill Clinton's directive to push changes to the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to lend to people who couldn't afford the loans, and when GWB tried to remedy the situation, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd stood in the way. And those very people who blocked the fix are in charge of this current attempt, as well.
And the CRA was a Carter Administration construct. So, in short, the deadly triple play on our economy goes Carter, Clinton, Frank, Dodd. End of the ball game.
Essentially, Bill Clinton's directive to push changes to the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to lend to people who couldn't afford the loans, and when GWB tried to remedy the situation, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd stood in the way. And those very people who blocked the fix are in charge of this current attempt, as well.
And the CRA was a Carter Administration construct. So, in short, the deadly triple play on our economy goes Carter, Clinton, Frank, Dodd. End of the ball game.
You're wasting your time with the facts. They never fly for some reason unless you're talking to other conservatives. Somehow virtually the entire media in this country failed to report on the Barney Frank and Chris Dodd situation, and I don't recollect anybody bringing up the changes the Bush Administration suggested except on the net. Go figure.
[This message has been edited by FieroFanatic13 (edited 06-04-2009).]
You're listed in the 'coastal' category--under the California heading of course.
Betcha there are more Republicans in California then there are people in Kansas. Shoot, there is probably more cattle in Kansas then people. So Wichita must be a steer.
Interesting how *I* am accused of painting broad strokes, and so on. I'm posting articles by someone who WAS a leftist, and who knows them and their philosophy.
When did *I* accuse you of anything? Obviously you are not the author of these articles, I haven't heard an original thought ever exiting your mind. Plus, you aren't a priviledged Jew like all of those "liberals". Because we all are Jewish, you know. Just like your Berkeley radical. We all love aggressive panhandlers. We all live in Berkeley, and we all hate cars and meat.
Really.
------------------ stimpy
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
Here's a hint for you...don't believe everything you THINK.
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: Essentially, Bill Clinton's directive to push changes to the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to lend to people who couldn't afford the loans, and when GWB tried to remedy the situation, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd stood in the way. And those very people who blocked the fix are in charge of this current attempt, as well.
And the CRA was a Carter Administration construct. So, in short, the deadly triple play on our economy goes Carter, Clinton, Frank, Dodd. End of the ball game.
yup. so, what was the amount of these loans? bah - nm. so, greed is liberal? because from what I see here, it was the personal greed of your two poster boys here, not anything to do with "liberal" or "conservative". but, I fully understand if it is impossible to think beyond "liberal" or "conservative". but, its fine to make excuses. I am sure we can trot out many greedy folk from both sides who create messes to fuel there own greed. so, again - should women be in Burkas? yes = conservative no = liberal which are you?
this how simplisticly ignorant this kind of thinking is
"for us or against us" is this really what you are down to? you cannot think on your own?
Originally posted by FieroFanatic13: In his defence, he posted facts that he used to come to the belief he has. That qualifies as thinking on his own in my opinion.
yes, sure does. I am speaking more in the general "US" & "THEM" mentality that this kind of thread has. it just like the "NAZI's are Left" thread. I guarantee if you divide the world into conservative & liberal - you will have idiots on both sides. the KKK is conservative. the Taliban is conservative. Muslims are basicly conservative.
yes, sure does. I am speaking more in the general "US" & "THEM" mentality that this kind of thread has. it just like the "NAZI's are Left" thread. I guarantee if you divide the world into conservative & liberal - you will have idiots on both sides. the KKK is conservative. the Taliban is conservative. Muslims are basicly conservative.
Perhaps you would care to explain that claim? How is a basically white supremacist group such as the KKK "conservative"? How is a radical theocratic ideological group such as the Taliban "conservative"? How is a religious faith such as Islam "conservative"?
yes, sure does. I am speaking more in the general "US" & "THEM" mentality that this kind of thread has. it just like the "NAZI's are Left" thread. I guarantee if you divide the world into conservative & liberal - you will have idiots on both sides. the KKK is conservative. the Taliban is conservative. Muslims are basicly conservative.
I'm not sure you're using the appropriate definition of "conservative" in all honesty. Conservatism is not all about religion and moral issues- but it gets painted that way.
Merriam Webster defines it this way:
Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism Function: noun Date: 1832
1 capitalized
a: the principles and policies of a Conservative party
b: the Conservative party
2 a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change ; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage) 3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
While I see your "point" in calling those you listed "conservative," you are pretty much narrowing it down to just the "existing tradition" concept. There's a lot more to it than that, and conservatism does not go hand in hand with religion any longer in my book.
[This message has been edited by FieroFanatic13 (edited 06-04-2009).]
I'm not sure you're using the appropriate definition of "conservative" in all honesty. Conservatism is not all about religion and moral issues- but it gets painted that way.
Merriam Webster defines it this way:
Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism Function: noun Date: 1832
1 capitalized
a: the principles and policies of a Conservative party
b: the Conservative party
2 a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change ; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage) 3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
While I see your "point" in calling those you listed "conservative," you are pretty much narrowing it down to just the "existing tradition" concept. There's a lot more to it than that, and conservatism does not go hand in hand with religion any longer in my book.
I think that much of that perception is a carry-over from the issue, that primarily the media made, of christian evangelicals gravitating to the Republican Party in 2000 and 2004. "Family values" voters were also lumped in with the evagelicals, even though, for many of them, their particular concerns were for schools, preservation of the nuclear family, and other issues that are not necessarily religious or even "evagelical" in nature. Christian "evangelicals", while welcomed to the GOP largely due to their strong belief in traditional moral values, certainly never comprised the majority of *conservatives*, nor solely defined conservative political ideology. The carry-over we see today is the assumption that any group with strong religious beliefs, *must* be politically "conservative". The dichotomy between the "conservative" political stances taken by protestant "evangelicals" and the liberal political stances taken by many devout Catholic groups in the U.S. , (i.e. illegal immigration),*should* be enough to give lie to that assumption, yet it seems to persist. How liberals can equate conservatism to any kind of theocratic ideology is even more mystifying when one considers, by example, that most true conservatives while favoring *allowing* prayer in public schools would at the same time abhor the idea of *mandating* it.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-04-2009).]
Bet there are more avocados in CA than there are liberals. The avocados have a higher IQ too.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by WhiteDevil88:
Betcha there are more Republicans in California then there are people in Kansas. Shoot, there is probably more cattle in Kansas then people. So Wichita must be a steer.
And you are obviosly a nutbag religious freak who gorges on corndogs and Yoo-Hoo.
This is fun!
Actually, I'm an atheist Libertarian that has earned a degree in Political Science. I've worked on campaigns for political candidates from governor down to the state rep. level and have worked with both Republicans and Democratic candidates.
I don't care if women receive abortions, I don't care about gays marrying each other, I don't care if somebody seeks a physician to help them commit suicide, and I don't care if somebody wants to grow or smoke pot.
Actually, I'm an atheist Libertarian that has earned a degree in Political Science. I've worked on campaigns for political candidates from governor down to the state rep. level and have worked with both Republicans and Democratic candidates.
I don't care if women receive abortions, I don't care about gays marrying each other, I don't care if somebody seeks a physician to help them commit suicide, and I don't care if somebody wants to grow or smoke pot.
Ah! A fellow political junky!! You do know that a Libertarian is just a Republican that doesn't like wearing a suit don't you?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-05-2009).]
