Posted on 11/26/2005 8:00:54 PM PST by Nasty McPhilthy
You just never know what a Liberal will reveal under the influence of a little turkey and a little wine, but it's almost always worth taking the opportunity to find out just how deep the madness goes. Such was the "conversation" I had with a Liberal over Thanksgiving dinner, during which she confirmed her eligibility for a padded cell.
At some point during the conversation (which had been pleasantly inconsequential until this point) the Liberal went out of her way to mention that she "adopted" a black family through her work, donating some small part of her paycheck towards handouts to the poor. She was quite proud of herself, for a few moments. "How do you know the money is going to a black family?" I just had to ask. With a withering stare, the Liberal told me that she didn't know who they were, but the family lived in Trenton (NJ). "No poor white people live in Trenton?" I wondered, and was informed that if they do, they probably don't need the help.
Well, that was stunning news... or would have been, if Liberal racism was in any way surprising. "Why do some poor people need help, while those of a different skin color don't?" I wanted to know. Obviously, the Liberal told me, the rich force black people into a cycle of dependency, so they need help to break out of it. "The rich are all white, then?" I asked. Of course, the Liberal said. The rich are either whites, or their lackeys. "Oh, of course," I said. "So all black people who don't get help from or work for rich white people like yourself are forced to stay poor by a conspiracy of other rich white people. Makes perfect sense. And they can't possibly become self-reliant and independent... why, exactly?" At this point, others began moving the breakable objects off the table. I never did find out how being dependent on rich white Liberals was any different from being dependent on rich white Conservatives.
Apparently, according to this Liberal, black people are victims of The System, a cabal of evil rich white men who run the government (unless Democrats are in office). The System deliberately creates bad schools wherever black people happen to live by not spending enough money on them. The Liberal answer to a sub-standard educational system is not to increase accountability for teachers -- because teachers will simply move to other schools -- but to simply put more money into the underperforming schools. The fact that this has had no effect in the past slips right through their grasp.
So that's why the government is responsible for feeding and clothing poor black people -- rich white people deliberately make them poor and uneducated in the first place, somehow. And when the government fails to take care of them, it's up to "decent" Liberal people like my conversation partner to give them money. "George Bush," she declared, "has divided this country into the 'haves' and the 'have-nots.' He's destroying the middle class with his tax cuts."
How does one even begin to respond to this kind of lunacy, other than calling for the white-coated men with butterfly nets? Nevertheless, I was game. "Aside from the fact that a good portion of your 'have-nots' own houses, cars and televisions, and that varying divisions of property have existed from the dawn of time, how do you think that cutting taxes hurts the middle class, which is the only group that actually pays income tax?" I asked. "But let's not get into that. What makes you think that simply handing out cash to people -- regardless of color -- helps them at all?" "It gives them some self-respect, by allowing them to have decent clothes to wear and food to eat," the Liberal asserted.
"So let me get this straight," I said. "Taking handouts from rich, white Liberals, knowing that he is dependent on those handouts for food and clothing, is supposed to bring a poor black person -- or any person -- more self-respect than learning marketable skills, getting a job and working himself out of poverty? And why don't white people need that kind of help, as you said earlier? What about Bill Cosby, and his assertion that black people need to take responsibility for themselves instead of propagating dependency?"
And the Liberal revealed her true self: "Because poor black people aren't as capable of raising themselves out of the gutter, or they'd have done so by now. They just can't. Bill Cosby is full of it."
Whew. I just stared at her. After a half-dozen heartbeats of uncomfortable silence, she realised her mistake and tried to recover, in Liberal fashion: "It's all George Bush's fault, anyway. If he wasn't throwing our money away on this war in Iraq just so his oil buddies could get free oil, then the government would have enough money to help people here at home. All this war is doing is wrecking the Middle East and our relationship with our friends."
So, I wondered aloud, freeing millions of people from tyranny, bringing democratic government to the Middle East and taking out supporters of terrorist groups didn't mean anything when stacked up against the disapproval of Saddam's puppets in the French and Russian governments? Were the mass graves somehow a good thing? And just where was all this oil that was supposedly stolen?
"Everybody knows Iraq's oil was stolen. But that's not important," she said. "What really matters is that we had no right to take Saddam out of office, and it won't stop terrorism. Without someone to keep them in check, those Arabs or whatever just run around killing at will. We shouldn't have given them an excuse to attack us by even buying oil from Middle Eastern countries in the first place. Let them kill each other; what do we care? But no, now they hate us. Now that they lost Saddam, you can see how the Iraqis are slaughtering our soldiers. It's on the news every day. They just can't handle freedom and democracy and all that. Those people need a dictator."
Those people need a dictator. Chilling, isn't it? For a moment, I was too amazed at the stark brutality of the Liberal's attitude to even hear the other lies. After all, though every death is mournful, the casualty rate we have suffered in the War on Terror has been remarkably low. Iraqis aren't "slaughtering" anyone; they're voting for representatives and ratifying their new constitution. The terrorists murdering Iraqi civilians and the occasional American soldier hated us long before a single American set foot in Iraq. But that one matter-of-fact statement overshadowed all the rest.
Those people need a dictator. This was no college-age peace-marching patchouli-stinking dope-smoking revolutionary wanna-be wearing a Ché Guevara shirt, mind you. I had this conversation with a highly intelligent corporate lawyer, respected in her firm, who earns a six-figure salary. This is also a person who donates heavily, in both time and money, to the Democratic party.
This is precisely the type of person who determines that party's platform and nominees, based on emotion, hypocrisy, racism and faulty logic.
No one, no one, "needs" a dictator.
This patronising sort of racism is the fundamental heart of Liberalism today. "These people" can't take care of themselves properly, so they need government help. "Those people" need a dictator to control their innate murderous tendencies; they're not capable of handling freedom and democracy. They can't help themselves, darling; it's natural for them to be lazy, shiftless, uneducated, subservient, or just plain crazy. They're not like us, you know.
Can we afford to simply throw up our hands in disgust and let the far Left persist in repeating their delusions unchallenged? To do so would be to abandon the future to the whims of madmen and demagogues. The slick conspiracy theory du jour, whatever lets Liberals indulge their feelings of superiority, will always gain traction with those who use emotion in place of reason. The way to fight these misbegotten ideas is with truth, fact and logic.
The only answer is to continue to demand proof of their accusations, challenge their positions and point out the inconsistencies in their logic, no matter how it upsets them. However exhausting it is to refute the same Liberal lies day after day, allowing them to drive this country into a Socialist, self-hating darkness would be far worse. For all of us.
In general I agree.
However, Iraq is no more phony than a great many other countries: India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, South Africa.
In much of the world, ethnic/linguistic groupings have little to do with where political boundaries are drawn.
Will enough Iraqis think of themselves as Iraqis before thinking of themselves as Sunnit, Shi'ites or Kurds?
Obviously not enough Yugoslavs thought of themselves as such rather than Serbs, Croats, etc.
Historically, the idea of Yugoslavia was formed as a way of grouping together enough of the peoples in the area to allow them to stand up to the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, long before the USSR was a threat. Sort of the inverse of "divide and conquer."
Sounds like a lot of people I know...
Bismarck came up with the slogan "Deutschland Uber Alles", not as a way of asserting German superiority, but as a way to get Germans to think of themselves as Germans, and not Hessians, Bavarians, etc.
Quite right.
Quite an illuminating essay.
Thanks.
It is both those things (what the article says and what you say).
These whackjobs are true believers, unfortunately. That must be tackled head-on.
If Company A is able to reduce its costs, and thus its prices, by adopting a practice such as outsourcing, Company B is forced to follow suit or lose market share, unless it can find some other way to remain competitive.
I had the exact same conversation with a guy at work. It's amazing how often the "those people" phrase comes up -- then the quick non-sequiter into "it's all Bush's fault, anyway."
She is correct because the constant mantra from the NAACP is gimmme gimme gimmme. I can't do it so gimme gimme gimme.
"There's something wrong with these peoples' brains".....IMHO it is pure selfishness...by claiming others can't "handle " democracy relieves them of the moral obligation to extend the salvific branch of the Creator's freedoms to others less fortunate, all the while taking advantage of such for themselves...
Limousine liberalism rears its ugly head once again. "Those people need a dictator," not "We need a dictator." Liberals are all for a set of restrictive rules for a group of people to whom they feel superior (which is practically everyone) as long as those restrictive rules don't apply to the liberals. We've always known this about the Left. The frightening thing is just how restrictive they want those rules to be.
Yup. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
"Please. They're not stupid. They're evil."
Yes, and demented
What you say is reasonable. It's just that I think a fragmented nation like the former Yugoslavia is better than living under Tito. Democracy sometimes has some friction, disagreement or conflict, but a Communist government makes a country a dungeon and worse.
Of the two, I'd choose to live in the fragmented, factious scene.
Another racist liberal stereotype.
Guess another racist liberal stereotype about Trenton is that black people love Italian food, based on all those great Italian restaurants in the Chambersburg section of trention.
As people what was the difference in the fight for civil rights in the 50's versus the 60's. What were they fighting for. What came FIRST? Their children came first!
Fighting for good schools for their children was the goal in the 50's. I see it as an indicator that despite the hardships, black families were stronger in the 50's than they are post LBJ Great Society. And the people that stood in the doorways keeping black children out of good schools were Democrats.
In the 60's, only after that goal was making progress, did it switch to voting rights.
Now, Democrats still keep black children in bad schools, again keeping them in bad schools by denying them vouchers.
The only thing that has changed is where Democrats stand. In the 50's it was in the doorway of the good school to keep black children out and today they stand in the doorway of bad schools to keep black children in.
Liberals wouldn't put up with that for their own children, so do black children count only as 3/5ths of a liberal child?
One thing that is NOT in question, in their own nuanced way, liberals are oh so racist.
Concur that they are not like us right now, but peace and democracy is what any decent human being desires, so long term I am hopeful.
L
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.