Liberals, let’s admit our own hypocrisy

>> The author of this is a typical kid. Idealism is easy when you’re young and don’t have to pay for anything yourself. When you get older, and those ideals start to consume your tax dollars, one’s thoughts begin to change.

Liberalism is more about control over others, feeling superior in that they can choose what is best for others because the “simple” people in life don’t really know what they want. It is pure arrogance, and kids tend to be full of arrogance. <<

Liberalism or “Classical Liberalism” used to be about limiting government intrusion into citizen’s inherent liberties. That was until it was co-opted by Communists in the middle of the 20th century.

“Here though, liberal philosophy isn’t just about how involved the government is, but rather what the government’s involvement is about: the government exists to ensure the freedom of its people by intervening when necessary for the benefit of the socially/economically marginalized.”

There is no freedom of the people when the government intervenes, no matter how idealistically you envision it. Government is not an altruistic nanny. It “provides” for the socially / economically marginalized by taking from the fruits of those it deems unworthy to keep their wealth at the point of a gun. If a mere citizen did this it's called armed robbery.

Government may not start out pointing a gun at you and taking your money, they depend on your willing compliance, but should you refuse, the end result will be they will use force to ensure your compliance.

Conservative philosophy holds that government powers flow “from the consent of the governed”. The Constitution outlines the responsibilities of the government, and the restraints on it's powers. Nowhere was it envisioned to be a equalizing force to ensure that no one individual got too wealthy or another too poor. It was not designed to babysit children, feed them, cloth them and make sure they all had the latest “rap” c.d.’s so their self esteem wasn't damaged.

It's a liberal falsehood that self esteem and self worth is based upon something that you “have” or can be given to you.
These are values you can only give yourself and must be earned, else they are delusional.

Once you understand that at a basic level, liberals are not interested in truth, honesty or freedom on any level, you will begin to understand the rage felt by Americans that aren't in lock step with liberals belief of “their” superior ideology. Your professor's snarky attack on Bush and Cheney is a perfect example. Liberals make such a statement and then thrust their superior nose in the air and proclaim themselves victorious.

What exactly did his statement prove? Only that he values his own opinion. Had you challenged him on his statement he would have launched into a tirade full of hate and short on facts, because liberals make up facts as they go along.

If, on the other hand, you had challenged Bush or Cheney with the veracity of their actions, they would have responded with class, dignity, and certainly in the case of Cheney, a logical explanation that would have left you in the dust.

Which again would you rather have running your life?

Liberalism is man jumping into God’s driver’s seat, with all of the consequences you would expect from such a decision.

I was always fairly conservative and liked Ronald Reagan when he spoke at the ‘76 Republican convention when I was 10 (finally got to vote for him in ‘84) but I never read conservative philosophy and stumbled through the early parts of college not even realizing that I was being “politically incorrect” (this was before clever Neo-Cons seized that term from the Marxists and effectively bludgeoned them with it). I can only guess that too many parents just don’t talk to their kids about life and morality these days. It certainly seems that plenty of kids never had their parents tell them the story of the Little Boy That Cried Wolf or The Ant and the Grasshopper or any of those other fables that used to morally inform children about how the world works. Of course television has also changed a lot since I was a kid, when even the liberal shows were pretty conservative in their perspective.

>all foreigners need to be killed or kept out.

...wow, talk about mis-stating the ideal...
But I’d have to say I AM in favor of military action against a domestic traitor, that is the cities of California which call themselves sanctuary cities.

Well put.

One of the main reasons it’s so easy to adopt a liberal political stance is because conservative views are held synonymous with status quo views — that is, the established order, the dominant paradigm, etc. Conversely, that which defies and ultimately shatters the status quo, breaks down barriers and illuminates perspectives, is fundamentally liberal.
A lot of professors around campus echo this kind of understanding.

This is largely true. The fallacy lies in erroneous labels defining who is "conservative" and who is "liberal."
At the start of the Twentieth Century the term "liberal" meant the same in America as it still does in the rest of the world - essentially, what is called "conservatism" in American Newspeak. Of course we "American Conservatives" are not the ones who oppose development and liberty, so in that sense we are not conservative at all. We actually are liberals.
But in America, "liberalism" was given its American Newspeak - essentially inverted - meaning in the 1920s (source: Safire's New Political Dictionary). The fact that the American socialists have acquired a word to exploit is bad enough; the real disaster is that we do not now have a word which truly descriptive of our own political perspective. We only have the smear words which the socialists have assigned to us. And make no mistake, in America "conservative" is inherently a negative connotation just as surely as marketers love to boldly proclaim that the product which they are flogging is NEW!
So American "conservatives" actually are liberal. Are American "liberals" actually conservative? Yes, to the extent that they attempt to prevent changes in prices and wages. In a very real sense "liberals" are reactionary against the changes which dynamic free enterprise creates.

There is however an unofficial Gulag Archipelago of homes, with unwed Mothers, keeping the unwanted alive, in the inner city and elsewhere, so they can fester into a permanent underclass, that Liberal politicians take their power from.

What he doesn’t realize is that EVERYTHING the liberals believe is subject to a double standard. They say that they want “freedom” and what they mean is they want the power to force their choices on everyone else.

In that sense, Liberals bestow their own Darwin award upon themselves.