Posted on 08/09/2011 12:49:41 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
When one considers the casualness with which left-wing politicians and media figures use words like "terrorist," "jihad" and "Wahhabis" to describe the Tea Party, one cannot help but wonder what shapes such attitudes in the first place.
In order to satisfy such curiosity, it is necessary to spend time among liberals, socialists, communists and self-described progressives. I realize this is not the way a lot of conservatives would want to spend their morning -- much less their afternoon or evening. Yet when in a political conflict, especially one that is likely to shape the very future of this country, it is most helpful for conservatives to know our adversaries as well as we know ourselves.
This is what motivated me to wake far earlier than usual last Sunday morning and travel across the Charles River to the People's Republic of Cambridge to attend a discussion about the Tea Party sponsored by the Ethical Society of Boston. The organization describes itself as "a non-theistic humanistic religious and educational fellowship inspired by the ideal that the supreme aim of human life is working to create a more humane society." So of course when a woman named Mary said she was curious about the Tea Party, another woman replied to her, "I hope you're not coming for a positive view." Ah, so it was going to be that sort of discussion.
The discussion was facilitated by a bearded gentleman named Gaston. By his own admission he did not consider himself "a very good facilitator" and made it very clear he held the Tea Party in little esteem. But he promised to "stand back." His earlier modesty notwithstanding, Gaston ensured all views were heard and even tried to find areas of common ground between "progressives" and Tea Partiers, albeit unsuccessfully.....
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
It is an easy ‘imagining’. The left are the same people that fight for the right for a selfish, foolish girl to have a “health professional” scoop out a human soul from her womb and call it ‘personal freedom of choice’ in deference of ‘her right to control her body’. Were it only so simple. God does not equivocate thusly.
What a shame for them. I can’t imagine what life would be like without my huge manatee.
Well, they might have humanity... just not the right kind.
Are you annoyed when your dog barks at someone? Well then be understanding of our lefty friends -- only if a dog becomes threatening do you act.
People who think and reason are obligated to avoid those words unless the words do in fact apply; to wit, Islamists (political Islam, Sharia law advocates), Hitler, Mussolini . . . .
Exactly. Leftists of all stripes studiously avoid anything that might call their worldview into question.
Liberals already know the truth. Why should they seek opposing views?
Remember right after 9-11 when the left was running ads with actors wrapped in US Flags telling us to stop hating??
Remember how we were supposed to be nice and not hate???
Remember how we were all supposed to have dialogue?
The 120-150 million dead in it’s wake should have been the tip off. The advent of abortion and millions more lost should have cemented the idea.
Planet of the Apes, this is what I think when I am around a bunch of bleating leftists who can only overscream and transform their discussions into a molestation orgy.
Remember how we were all scolded any 9-11 backlash?
And...Can we have a funded committee for “Tea Party Haters and discriminators”?
That's it in a nutshell, adianoeta intended. Enter a conversation with one of these creatures, tell him or her or it that you're a conservative, and you tend to be treated with a solid stream of "you believe" accusations that is a safe but rather sterile substitute for political discourse. I once heard a conservative friend accused of attempting to establish a theocracy, which was amusing in view of the fact that he was, at the time, an atheist.
Mostly it's fear. These ostensibly "free" thinkers are so locked into their narratives and their stereotypes that real political discourse turns out to be awkward because it threatens tribal boundaries. There are, to be sure, conservatives plagued with this same limitation but it's endemic on the Left.
There is no logical discussion with liberals because their concept of the use of language is utterly alien to the rest of us.
"Us" and "Them" describes their entire social and political argument.
I’ve lived amongst liberals all my life, and I think I have come to understand them pretty well. Basically, they are born with the same basic moral impulses and conflicts as the rest of us. Part of them wants to do things only to please themselves, but they also have that little thing called a conscience that gets in the way. This is where they part ways with the rest of us. Instead of learning that it’s better to listen to your conscience and repress some of your urges, liberals allow themselves to be convinced that the conscience is superfluous and can be ignored without consequences. Sometimes, the school system or their parents indoctrinate this into them, and other times, they rationalize themselves into it. Either way, at some point they decide to make pleasing themselves their main objective, and will then adopt any line of rationalizations and excuses, no matter how far-fetched, if they think it will help them to suppress the objections of their protesting consciences.
So, long story short, conservatives supress their selfish impulses in order to quiet their conscience, but liberals try in vain to supress their consciences so that they may indulge their selfish impulses.
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.