Replies

Sunday, July 7, 2002

Quote of the Day by governsleastgovernsbest

BUMP

Dear John: As the old joke goes, a democracy is when the wolves outnumber the sheep in deciding what to have for dinner.:)

Since the Oklahoma City bombing, for instance, the so-called "conservative" senators in Oklahoma are pushing for millions of dollars in victim handouts. Additionally, liberalism has made its way to the World Trade Center issues – the government is handing out millions of dollars to victims and victims' families of the attack on the WTC.

This totally baffled me when it was happening. And I wrote my represenatives to government and told them so.

What kind of idiots do we send to Washington anyway? When did the US government become a life insurance company?

I have as much empathy for the families of the victims of these terrorist attacks as anyone. I do not however believe that the Constitution authorizes the Congress to appropriate funds to compensate individual families of victims of acts of war or crimes.

Liberalism is a mixture of all-out greed, irresponsibility, ignorance and irrational programs and decisions.

I think Mr. Williams misses the point here. He comes close to identifying the nature of liberalism/socialism through some of his examples but his concluding statements are a little off-base. The key issue here is control. Those that believe in the collectivist dogma want to tell people what to do, where to go and how to act. And they have no qualms about using the force of government to accomplish their goals. Greed? Money is merely a means to this end. If they could accomplish their goals without spending a dime, I believe they would. Irresponsibility? Certainly, no one who advocates such programs wants to be held accountable for the "unintended" consequences of their actions. Create generation after generation of an illiterate, unproductive welfare class? Oh, but that's not what we intended! Disarm millions of law-abiding citizens to the benefit of the predators and criminally insane? Oh, but that's not what we intended! We won't say we're sorry and we won't change our minds. Irresponsible? Indeed! Ignorance? Most of those who support such ideas are ignorant. Ignorant of basic economics and the history and heritage of this country. However, the "leadership" is not unaware of these simple truths. They simply choose to ignore them in pursuit of their own political careers. More control. Irrational? Certainly, to those of us who have at least a basic understanding of the ideas upon which this country was founded, they might seem irrational. But when you understand the motivation behind such actions, they make perfect sense. If control over other people were my goal, I would follow exactly the path chosen by the "leadership" of the left. First, I would transform the public school system from an institution dedicated the transfer of knowledge and development of critical thinking to one based on developing "self-esteem" and "diversity". An uneducated and unthinking electorate will vote for anything or anyone. Next, I would try to instill as much class envy as possible. I would imply that no one really earns their wealth. Just that some are "luckier in life's lottery" than others. Since, effort and ability have nothing to do economic success, we'll just even things up by taking from the rich to give to the poor. Since those of modest means will always far out number those with greater wealth, an electorate bought and paid for is created. Lastly, I would declare every problem in the country a "crisis" or an "emergency" requiring federal intervention, no matter how small or local the problem might be. Sugar prices too low? Subsidies and tariffs should cure that problem. Inner city schools have leaky roofs and graduates that can't read? Apparently, $6000 a year per student isn't enough. Let's make it $8000 and see if Johnny can read his diploma. Floods in Texas? Hurricanes in Florida? Break out the federal checkbook and make it all better. It's all about control.

A liberal is a tax supported, thumb sucking, too good to get a real job,socialist willing to volunteer for a full frontal lobomy, performed by a orange haired knuckle dragging orangutan! Guaranteed by a government grant he/she sponsored and got passed, that we the people are obliged to support in the name of tolerance!

The newest concept that raises my ire is "social equity" or "social justice." It is pure socialism - redistribution of global wealth based on a doctrine of "fairness."

It is the liberal's belief that life must be made "fair" by government, that "competition" (e.g. winners and losers) is eliminated from our children's lives. That everyone is made "equal" by government programs. That everyone has an equal say and control over what happens in their communities and on property within those communities. That decisions affecting the "community" must be consensus-based and all conflict eliminated.

Liberals want government to eliminate the diversity and differences between us. Liberals want un-natural homogenity and in that they seek an end to conflict.

I was watching a biography on the history channel on Davey Crocket and Daniel Boone. They discussed how Fess Parker, by playing both, had amalgamated the two as one heroe that embodied the characteristics of an American - rugged, robust, individualistic, capable, competitive, courageous, adventuresome, principled. To me this describes conservative values.

I once made a statement in a discussion that civilizations are known for how they treat their most vulnerable populations. The wise retort was, yes, but that does not mean that government should assume that job.

These points have helped me grasp the differences between liberals and a conservatives.

Kyle Williams has it right.