Skip to comments.The Lie at the Core of Liberalism: 'We Care'
Posted on 10/21/2019 6:52:39 PM PDT by TBP
The reality is that liberals don't care about others.
If liberals cared about blacks, they'd have fixed the school systems in cities like Chicago and Detroit. Yet after generations of liberal Democrat rule, the blacks in those cities still get horrible educations. But the teachers in those cities get great pay even though they fail miserably at their jobs. Why? Perhaps it has something to do with the huge support the teachers' unions give to Democrat candidates.
If liberals really cared about the poor, they'd give more of their own money to charity. Yet liberals tend to give less of their own money to charities than conservatives do. Why? Perhaps it's because by laundering money to help the poor through the government, the liberals get a trifecta: they control how the money is spent, they get high-paying jobs with great benefits in government, and they don't have to actually part with any of their own money.
If liberals cared about blacks, they'd join with Jesse Jackson's former condemnation of abortion as racist genocide. Abortion is the leading cause of death for blacks in America; black women are five times more likely to have an abortion than white women yet liberals are staunch supporters of abortion. Why? Perhaps because liberals favor a hedonistic lifestyle where sex is a casual thing. In a 1981 poll, 54% of media elites didn't think adultery is wrong, and since no form of birth control is perfect, abortion is a necessity if sex is to be without consequences. Perhaps the racist roots of modern liberals Democrats founded the KKK and the segregation laws of the South plays a role, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Power and control, that is their goal.
They care about power. The power to make themselves rich on your misery.
They care in the abstract, not in the personal.
They don’t even care in the abstract.
I was talking to one liberal friend who disputed the roaring economy because she didn’t benefit. She’s a part-time professor, who have always been paid dismally little. Yet she judges the presidency by whether she has personally benefited.
Why not evaluate a presidency on how the entire country benefits (or not)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.