The Tricky Mind of a Liberal

9. They say it is the parent's job to screen what their children watch on television, and yet they don't trust parents to teach their children about sex.

10. They hold "diversity" dear to their hearts, and speak out for religious, sexual, racial/ethnic, and lifestyle "tolerance", so long as you're not a conservative heterosexual male or a Christian.

Busing--atheism--govt. schools--evolution--

humanism/communism/socialism...

race-class rhetoric--pandering---

basically freaks---social engineering!

I'm not going to argue about the points you make, but I would like to caution against stereotyping. Otherwise people might generalize that Tim McVeigh was representative of the right-wing, or that Richard Nixon was a good example of a Republican president. Individuals hold individual viewpoints, which can be seen clearly by the diverse (and often conflicting) opinions seen here on Free Republic. Liberal opinions vary too; they are human beings and fellow citizens and not the "enemy". Disagreement is fine, but some of the hate and dehumanization I see is not healthy.

Liberals demonize the right...DEVILCRATS!

You are correct. Modern liberalism is an ideology of hypocrisy.

I grow ever so tired of the blatant hypocrisy of the left that sometimes I feel like I’m going to burst a blood vessel. Not too long ago I was discussing the tragic events of 9/11 with a person we’ll call Mitch. I would label Mitch moderately left of center as far as political leanings go. Mitch asked me how I would feel if the Iraqis were responsible for the attacks. To which I replied that I didn’t give a damn who was behind the attacks and that I just wanted them held accountable for their actions.

Now before I continue let me give you a little tip for when your conversing with a lefty. It’s real easy to spot a forthcoming hypocritical statement because they usually warn you before hand as you’ll soon see. I think this is a result of a subconscious desire to minimize the impact of their idiocy.

So anyway, Mitch then says something to the effect that he’s not saying the attack was justified but if it was the work of Iraqis then perhaps he could understand it - boom, did you see it - because we continue to bomb Iraq every now and then and during the Gulf war we destroyed some “colleges” and “learning centers” where Iraqis “go to become better people”. Mitch then proceeded to school me in the evils of the Iraqi no fly zones. When I asked why the no-fly zones existed he responded with something about how they exist because the British and American governments want them there (read as power hungry imperialists) and then the comment kind of ran out of steam. When I offered that they were there for the protection of the Kurds, I found my comment quickly met with the knee jerk, “not in the South!”. Of course anyone with half a brain realizes that the targets of Saddam’s 1990 invasion were Kuwait and Saudi Arabia which both lie to the, guess where, South of Iraq. Undaunted, I continued by mentioning how Saddam had nerve gassed the Kurds and again found my comments poopoo’d in typical knee jerk fashion by a kind of “yea, yea” response.

Here’s another tip about talking with lefties, they cannot and will not be bothered with logic, history, geography, facts, and especially not proof of evil. Only ideological fantasy will do.

Anyway, we continued on and I cracked a few jokes about how we should believe everything the Iraqi/foreign press says and just to drive the point home I brought up that story about the “Baby Milk Factory”. Remember that? From there we moved to discussion of war and the death of civilians. Mitch boastfully told me in so many words that he abhors killing of any kind (Mitch of course is pro-choice). So I asked if there was a difference between killing armed combatants and civilians. To which he replied no, there is no difference. You see in the leftist Utopian vision of the world this argument makes all the sense in the world but it blatantly ignores reality. But remember my second tip. It’s been my experience that Leftists find it almost as hard to acknowledge the existence of evil as it is for them to acknowledge the existence of God (if they do at all). Of course a world without evil would be a Utopia but that ain’t reality. So rather than accepting that evil sometimes makes war unavoidable. And rather than recognizing that some things are worth fighting for. And rather than appreciating the rules of war and accepting that there is a difference between armed combatants and civilians liberals simply choose to ignore reality and disbelieve. In doing so leftists, like Mitch, relegate themselves to the company of those greatest butchers of history. Because the likes of Pol Pot and Stalin didn’t see the difference either.

"Otherwise people might generalize that ... Richard Nixon was a good example of a Republican president."

He's not?

11. (Care of Colin Quinn) They are all for Diversity as long as you don't mention any differences!!

Bump for later.

They'll preach about being vegans or vegatarians yet on the other side of the life spectrum, they'll tell you that they're in favor of aborting unborn children (especially in sharp contrast to their stance against the Death Penalty).

It's obvious they have no sportsmanship, everyone knows a real sportsman throws back the little ones and catches them later!!

2. They claim to be about tolerance and/or peace yet, they'll sympathize with people who commit the most henious of crimes (e.g. Andrea Yates and the Taliban members who are currently held captive in Cuba).

Would you care to empathize? How about forgive? Hope you find peace and tolerance, in your final judgment.

"Liberal opinions vary too; they are human beings and fellow citizens and not the "enemy"."

I vigorously disagree. Liberals and Democrats are the "enemy". And they represent a far greater threat to the United States than any threat ever faced by the United States with the single exception of the Soviet Union. And arguably, the threat posed by Democrats is proving to be lethal to the United States, as opposed to the threat posed by the Soviet Union which could have proved lethal to people of the US.

We could use your input on this thread

5. They don't seem to properly understand gratitude when they see it as they'll constantly attack the police (even though they're the first people to call whenever trouble is around rather than say the ACLU) every chance that they get.

Uh, oh. Liberteens do this, too.

10. They hold "diversity" dear to their hearts...

Yep, they believe in diversity all right. They believe every college and place of employment should contain female liberals, black liberals, Hispanic liberals, gay liberals, disabled liberals... :-)

I did not realize that a liberal had a mind.
All those I have met [clinton worshippers] could do was shout slogans and call names.

1. They'll preach about being vegans or vegatarians yet on the other side of the life spectrum, they'll tell you that they're in favor of aborting unborn children (especially in sharp contrast to their stance against the Death Penalty).

Queston what is the difference between the libs on this stance and the conservatives when you just turn the words around

They'll tell you that they're in favor of the Death Penalty (especially in sharp contrast to their stance against the aborting unborn children ).

Please answer me this.

randystone

I think that's a good, thoughtful question- let me see if I can answer it to your satisfaction:

Regarding the abortion debate, I am ambivalent. When does human life begin? I don't really know, truthfully- I think that falls in the realm of the metaphysical. But I think the potential for human life that exists in the embryo should be taken seriously from a moral standpoint. I'm not an enthusiast for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but I cannot in good conscience cast my lot with most pro-choice organizations precisely because much of their rhetoric and many of their actions seem to discount this moral uncertainty. They also seem disturbingly unwilling to consider the possible negative personal and societal consequences of the policies they are pushing. I think it is dishonest to deny that the legalization of abortion has in part allowed us to rationalize population control, physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, sterilization of "undesirables", etc- and that some of these ideas have had disasterous effects on human freedom and human dignity. I think it is equally dishonest to deny that abortion can adversely effect the lives of individual women, or that abortion makes it a little easier to abandon women in crisis or engage in irresponsible sexual behavior. I suppose the best way to describe my position would be personally pro-life, publicly pro-limited-choice. I am against abortion after "viability" except in medical emergencies. I am for requiring parental consent and waiting periods. If there is a way to develop stem cell lines without using embryos, I say pursue it vigorously. I am against public funding of pro-abortion activities. In essence, I am for taking the moral status of the embryo seriously.

I am also for the existence of the death penalty, and I don't think that contradicts what I've stated above. I think a distinction needs to be made between human life that is morally innocent, and human life that is not. Humanity is not simply determined by our shared biology, our shared emotions, or our shared intelligence. Animals have biology, emotions, and intelligence. Humanity also involves living by a universal moral code (some argue there is no such thing, but I vehemently disagree), or having the potential to do so once one comes of age. When a man murders another (this is distinct from killing, which can be justified if it is in self defense or in the context of a war that is righteous based on universal morality), he is turning his back on that code and declaring himself a traitor to the family of man. And sometimes that declaration is so bold and so heinous that there can be no effective answer except the punishment of death. I certainly believe that whatever procedural flaws exist in our implementation of the death penalty today should be examined and corrected, if correction is possible. But we can't make our decision regarding the death penalty using perfect-or-not-at-all reasoning, because our existence on planet Earth necessarily limits our ability to achieve perfection. I've also observed that societies that have abandoned the death penalty with absolutely good intentions are often also societies that have trouble making moral judgements about anything- and the negative consequences of this relativism are legion.

Here's a key thing that separates a conservative like me from my liberal friends: I do not believe that all life is morally equivalent. I do believe distinctions can and should be drawn.

I hope that answers your question.

I just came up with another one:

They are suspicious of the police and do everything they can to hinder their effectiveness, and yet they say we don't have to arm ourselves because "we have the police."