How to Deprogram a Liberal in One Year Or Less

American Thinker ^ | May 21, 2009 | Robin of Berkley

[conservativebuckeye]

That was an extremely insigtful post. Whether we want to admit it or not, we who follow politics are partisan at least to some degree. I readily admit I sometimes take a position because it’s thought to be the conservative view and in opposition to the left-wing stance. In 2004, I intentionally ignored the problems I had with Bush in order to prevent Kerry from being elected.

[nathanbedford]

In your post number 61 you acknowledge the truth of the proposition that it is human nature to work backwards in logic to rationalize a position advanced by people with whom we identify. How true that proposition is and how easily we all give way to that impulse.

Sickoflibs has advanced the proposition that runs counter to the logic advanced by people with whom we identify. He rightly says that logically you cannot conclude that increased economic activity comes only from tax cuts when it is coincident in time with increased spending or printing of money. It seems to me that he is defended his position vigorously and within the bounds of fair argument. My own opinion is that we do not know the degree to which tax cuts can be credited and spending or printing must be calculated. In trying to answer that question I went to the source cited by sickoflibs and found it credible. Seems to me we can grapple with the logic of his argument or we can go to the ad hominem. The ad hominemis ultimately self-defeating. No man this side of the cross is infallible and pedigree is no way of determining truth. I am struck by this quote which I have saved:

...these source of a doctrine, news item, or any other statement carried more weight than the content of it; the feeling about the source preceded and determined the true believers reaction. " In other words, Dennis, Foster and the founders did not credit the overwhelming evidence of Stalin's crimes until an authoritative Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, ruled that they were crimes. (p. 39) "In Denial" by Haynes's and Klehr,

So William Duranty of the New York Times gets the Pulitzer Prize while he fails to report the 7 million Ukrainians were murdered by Stalin. He was seduced by authority rather than reason and observation.

The Soviet Union imploded because it could not correct itself and it could not correct itself because it resorted to the ad hominem as the means of determining truth.

So I am regretfully equally disappointed in your post number 60 as I am encouraged by your post number 61. Your post number 61 reads as follows:

Levin is smarter and wittier than you could ever dream of being. How many number one best sellers have you written?

Adolf Hitler sold more bestsellers than Mark Levin, does that make him more correct than Mr. Levin?

Conservatism will prosper or founder not based on whether we are gung ho but whether we have a rigorous devotion to wherever the truth might lead us, as you have rightly acknowledged in your post number 61.

[TheOldLady]

Agreed. This is a change agent, to be ignored.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Then you ain't seeing fiscal conservatism... you're seeing nanny-state conservatism.Fiscal conservatives want small government and low taxes, period. “

The name of Fiscal conservatives came up in another thread I was posting to and it seems to be a term used by liberals who dont want to be identified as such, example ? Megn McCain. The argument there was that ‘Fiscal conservative’ is used by those that want to say they are not ‘social conservatives’.

But many who call themselves Fiscal conservatives want a nanny government and are liberals like those in 1990s in NYS that voted republican. They vote republican sometimes because they see their taxes going up as too much money going to others, those poor and minorities for welfare,but they still want social programs especially theirs and Gay marriage. Now they voted for Obama.

Every republican candidate claims he is the real conservative.

[sickoflibs]

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I was a big fan of Levin from 2004 till last year 2008 and bought and read his book on the Courts and constitution. I even refered many friends to his show and most complained to me about the way he cuts off callers. Rush repeats similar narratives I pointed out but Rush is polite to his guests and lets them get their points across. (I got Rush 24/7 last December and have listened to him since 1992).

If I were to call Levin and challenge him to any of his talking points he would cut off my mike and berate and insult me. Levin sets up an 'us against all of them' world where if you disagree with him you are almost a terrorist. Read the replies on the Levin example I posted and they sound exactly like him, just by disagreeing with him I am stupid, I am the enemy, I am helping 'The Left'.

You know what? Sometimes these 'so called' conservatives are wrong. All the after the fact finger pointing on the housing crisis and the CRA and look at the credit card bill democrats sent to Obama to sign. It is very moderate and makes it harder for credit card companies to lure the gullible (the so called CRA bad credit deadbeats) by subprime adjustable rate credit card debt that brought down the housing market . . Why the hell couldn't republicans pass a popular reform like this when in power that is consistent with their late 2008 CRA theme?? Instead they passed a bill to make it harder to use bankruptcy to clear the debt once these gullible/clueless get trapped. They could have added these reasonable reforms to that bankrupcy bill.(I never pay interest myself and I get bonus points so this is not personal either!)You know how this makes republicans look to voters? Especially with TARP??

Republicans didnt reform credit card policies because when republicans were in power (up to last fall) 'easy luring credit (card traps) was the engine of economic growth 'was the conservative theme then. This blame CRA theory did not get invented by conservatives/republicans till it all crashed in October 2008.

I know I will get hate pings for claiming anything that gets passed is good, for helping the left, Bla-Bla-Bla.

[nathanbedford]

I agree with your review of Mark Levin entirely. I understand why he does it but it is so counterproductive that it will begin to impose limits on his ability to continue to grow.

He does it for the same reason that Rush Limbaugh assumes the role of braggadocio, to compensate for a felt prejudice against conservatism and conservatives which still exists in our society. When Limbaugh first came onto the scene he was regarded to be an unnatural oddity instead of a political commentator with forceful views. To be a conservative of Limbaugh's stripe in the late 80s was to be more than a novelty it was to be eccentric. So Limbaugh fought for intellectual respectability by claiming superior insight.

Similarly Levin's attempts to disparage the legitimacy of liberals is an attempt to level the playing field, or should I say, the battlefield. I believe that Levin is ill advised to continue this practice because it confirms every leftists' prejudice about conservatives as Neanderthals.

I think the Republicans would have been well advised to force transparency on the credit card companies but I think there were legitimate objections to the Democrats bankruptcy bill.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I think the Republicans would have been well advised to force transparency on the credit card companies but I think there were legitimate objections to the Democrats bankruptcy bill.”

Seriously, what is the worst thing in the final bill as it was passed with both parties support? I know it makes it harder for credit cards to raise the interest rates on a balance already made after October (otherwise there is no interest rate limits on new balances .) This is a disincentive (worst case ) to give people with questionable means 0 APR teaser rates just to increase it to 20% later. This really is consistent with conservatives late 2008 CRA theme. It also makes it harder to lure students with no jobs into high interest debt. I am having trouble finding flaws in this bill.

My point is not just to argue, but also to new find good dependable points I have not thought of. I am not saying republicans did not improve this bill. I am asking why they didnt pass a similar one when in charge to get credit for it.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Why the hell couldn't republicans pass a popular reform like this when in power that is consistent with their late 2008 CRA theme??

Some of the worst credit card abuses happened after Obama was elected, and of course the Dems have had majorities in congress for some time now. I think part of the story is that, from a political point of view, the time is ripe now for credit card reform. As others have argued, this bill may have some unintended negative consequences, such as new fees for those with good credit.

OTOH, if the Rs were in control now, would they have pushed such a bill? Why won't either party push reform of the credit bureaus? Why do I have to pay to see my own credit information, especially since so much of the information they keep is incorrect or fraudulent?

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Some of the worst credit card abuses happened after Obama was elected, and of course the Dems have had majorities in congress for some time now. I think part of the story is that, from a political point of view, the time is ripe now for credit card reform. As others have argued, this bill may have some unintended negative consequences, such as new fees for those with good credit.”

Did you mean abuses under Bush after 2001 or Pelosi after 2006?? The time is ripe politically because both parties blame easy credit for the crash but point the fingers at who to blame. My point here is similar, reform is consistent with late 2008 blame CR theme.

I hear the same threats about people with good credit getting fees to pay for the fact that they cant lure the CRA type deadbeats into low teaser rate and then later jack them up to 20-30%, just like the CRA adjustable mortage did. Something seems wrong with this threat. I get rewards from Chase so I dont want changes to my account BUT if Chase lowers limits and raises interest rates UP FRONT on those with bad credit and little means, how can I object? Morally how can conservatives blame Barney frank for CRA home adjustable loans yet defend the same practice for unsecured credit cards??

[Bob]

The son, who also works as a political consultant...

As was pointed out by a caller to Levin's show the other day, the son is, of course, a Democrat political consultant. Who'da thunk it? :=)

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Did you mean abuses under Bush after 2001 or Pelosi after 2006??

Neither. I meant after Obama was elected, exactly as I said. It was all over the news that some credit card companies were raising interest rates for borrowers who had never been late.

I get rewards from Chase so I dont want changes to my account BUT if Chase lowers limits and raises interest rates UP FRONT on those with bad credit and little means, how can I object?

That is one of the arguments for the bill, but credit card spokespeople have already threatened to start charging new fees on borrowers with good credit, as a result of the credit card bill. Who knows, I suppose the bill might do more good than harm. We may not know how it works out until the credit card companies try various schemes to get back their profits, and I would not be surprised to see lawyers trying to cash in too.

In other news, Obama has a new plan to allow consumers to sue financial companies. Bush allowed the economy to melt down, but Obama seems to want to take a much more active role in determining who wins and loses, and I distrust Obama much more.

[sickoflibs]

RE :” Neither. I meant after Obama was elected, exactly as I said. It was all over the news that some credit card companies were raising interest rates for borrowers who had never been late. “

You read about it more now because of the crash. I watched CSPAN in 2007 and saw dem congress grilling credit card companies and I was actually sympathetic to the companies(this was before bailouts) . Credit card companies had been raising rates because the borrowers were late on other bills, their credit was getting worse. I actually agreed with that practice in theory . But now they will have an incentive to set the high rates up front or lower the maximum limits on those that are risky (they wont do this to us if we have high credit ratings, and I dont pay interest anyway.)

RE :”..but credit card spokespeople have already threatened to start charging new fees on borrowers with good credit, as a result of the credit card bill. “

I hear this from multiple sourses but it hardly makes me want to believe them or be sympathetic. Will they really drive GOOD credit risks to competitors ?? Who would you want to lend money to? Someone who cant keep a job at 20% APR or someone who pays all his bills every month on time and has a house?

(This is a reasonable reform, they can raise the rates on new debt at any time). I like slot machines too because it's a regressive tax, but if slot machine casinos got bailouts because their losers were defaulting I would want limits on gamblers credit too.

RE :”...and I distrust Obama much more.”

Yes but it makes more sense to try to reform republicans than democrats. Like Schiff says, " Most Republicans make believe they know better just before elections so they know the concept of capitalism. Democrats actually say they think socialism works. " You cant reform that.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I’m not contesting your statements, I’m just asking for examples.’

Here's one I got pinged with today:Cheney loves this country MORE than getting “public vindication.” It does not seem that our current President has the same love for this country as Cheney does.

First I know democrats are playing politics with Bush/terrorism record now it's very obvious. I have heard this above about Cheney said word for word by Rush every day for weeks now. Even if Cheney is right this is not my first thought that "Cheney doesnt care what we think of him" so my guess is it's not a co-incidence the poster wrote this. Let's explore these themes:

1) Cheney is not defending his decisions publically because he cares what we think but because he loves this country.(a regular Rush message.)
1b) Cheney is critizing Obama on national security because he loves this country, but democrats criticized him for 8 years because they HATE this country.
2) Cheney loves this country, Obama hates this country.

I know I am swimming upstream here and I know I will get pings that these are absolute truths but these are more simple narratives that cannot be easily tested, they are subjective. I mean, "Does Obama really hate us?" Is this proved because we disagree? Did Bush hate democrats? Or did Cheney hate Muslims like democrats claimed? Democrats said "Bush hates this country " for 8 years. now we say "Obama hates this courtry"

Pelosi is more believable for those themes if us winning is all that counts.

[CharacterCounts]

"Does Obama really hate us?

No! Unless you are a white male, middle class gun owning Christian. Then he hates you with a passion.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”No! Unless you are a white male, middle class gun owning Christian. Then he hates you with a passion.”

LOL. That’s ME! Don’t forget tax paying too!

That may be true BUT on camera he sure looks like he loves us. At least Pelosi looks like she hates us.

[roses of sharon]

Good letter, for liberals, history begins when they wake up in the morning.

Unfortunately, BDS is addicting for those on the left (and the right as you can see here), its like political porn.

Without their GWB-boogyman, where would they be?

[sickoflibs]

Here's a example of a simple unprovable liberal narrative repeated nightly on MSNBC: “Cheney instructed the CIA to break the law and constitution on torture because he is a sadist that loves invading countries and torturing innocent Muslims (and us too!)”

Now Cheney would be quite the diabolical evil monster if this was true as some must believe. On the other side Cheney is the white night selfishly taking arrows from democrats who want to enslave and kill us all.

[Jeff Chandler]

On the other side Cheney is the white night selfishly taking arrows from democrats who want to enslave and kill us all.

Actually, Cheney is popular because he fights back against the slander. Ordinary, reasonable courage is so rare among Republicans that when it does appear it seems monumental.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Actually, Cheney is popular because he fights back against the slander. Ordinary, reasonable courage is so rare among Republicans that when it does appear it seems monumental. “

Bush was pathetic when it came to defending his record. He probably told himself he was being dignified but it was his parties (Republican) elections that suffered the price of his not attacking back. I was glad to see Cheney’s speech counter Obama’s on the same day but this defense is too late to help republicans, unless Obama does a big screwup.

[aruanan]

unless Obama does a big screwup.

Does? Obama IS a big screwup.