Student of Ideologies - Hello!

[Uknow_me72]

Hello everyone,

I'm just a college student who wants to deepen my understanding of ideologies. I don't hide the fact that I am conservative, but I do believe I am one of the "relatively" open-minded conservatives. I don't follow the news and current events as much as I read ancient philosophers. I imagine people on these boards frown upon the labeling of people's views, but here are my pathetically optimistic reasons for joining these message boards:

1. To better understand the ideology of liberalism.
2. To become more nuanced / balanced / fair in my thinking
3. To have this community weed out my weakest thoughts
4. To have thoughtful members of these boards change my mind on certain issues. Perhaps in a year I'll have to sign up as a new user named "TimelessLiberal."

I do have a website, but it only has a few articles/posts so far. I hope to write more in the following weeks. So far I have an article (dialogue) about Gay Marriage, and one about College and Conservatives. Visit timelessconservative.blogspot.com if you feel like reading amateur philosophy/politics.


Thanks for reading,
I hope to see you around these boards,
----
Timeless Conservative

You want the standard BS you get from people who only intend to answer your questions with a sea of knowledge that they have on the internet(google, wiki, etc) and not by their own doing and opinions.

If you want that then don't read anymore.

If you want what is real opinions that won't hold on to a piece of paper as empirical and will venture outside then continue.

There is a thing here that people are trying to conform to, to be the cool kids. They only look for the most acceptable answer, not the answer they really believe. They do not want to be the sore thumb or the black sheep. This is what you are dealing with in this day and age. They will gladly accept ideology from a source of authority with no struggle as long is it makes them "normal".

TC send me mail and we can chat if you want real perspective not programmed automated BS that you will get from the mindless poster that are only trying to make sure their thoughts align with a certain classification.

If we had something a little more streamlined I feel would more appropriate for small talk instead of waiting for responses. Please send me mail if you want to chat.

 

[Darkwind]

LOL...after you educate yourself of corporate personhood, you really need to turn off the right wing radio, it is ALL one sided, or didn't you know that???

As opposed to everything else which is all one-sided, but to the left.

 

[Darkwind]

Now that you bring it up, I am concerned with the desecration of our Constitution, and I'm certain that you will agree with me about the following:

1. Remember the cacophonous wailing of the left over the Bush administration's alleged politicization of the Justice Department? We always knew they were just projecting, but now we have even more proof.
I first learned from my friend Andy McCarthy's blog post on National Review Online that Attorney General Eric Holder had rejected the legal opinion of his own Justice Department lawyers that the D.C. voting rights bill, which would give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional.
Why would Holder reject the legal opinion of his own deputies? Dumb question. Because he doesn't like the answer and neither does his boss, President Obama. They both strongly support passage of the bill and do not believe a little trifle, such as an express constitutional provision forbidding it, should be permitted to get in their way. How many times do leftists have to demonstrate that they are an ends-justify-the-means bunch before it sinks in?
The Washington Post confirms that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, "an elite unit that gives legal and constitutional advice to the executive branch," did issue an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the voting rights bill is unconstitutional.
David Limbaugh : Holder's Injustice - Townhall.com


2. Interview on WJR radio, Detroit of Bankruptcy Lawyer Tom Lauria by Beckman, re: the White House attempt to strong arm investors in Chrysler to drop their contractual rights to be paid first in a bankruptcy.
a. These “1st Lien Lenders” took a chance on Chrysler, accepting a low rate of return in exchange for high security.
b. Clients include pensioners, teacher’s unions, etc. in Pirello-Weinberg, Oppenheimer Funds, Stairway Capital.
c. The White House is demanding concessions and an abrogation of the contract, and have been directly threatened by the White House, if they didn’t give in.
d. The Lenders have offered to accept 50%, and the White House is demanding that they accept 29%
e. This becomes a Constitutional issue, as Contract and Property rights should be sacrosanct. Lauria contends that as our government is composed of three independent branches, and the Executive is now taking over the role of the Judiciary.
News/Talk 760 WJR
White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm's Reputation* - Political Punch


3. There appears to be a side to the Chrysler bankruptcy that has the look of an ugly partisanship not seen in this town since Tricky Dick Nixon was in the White House composing his enemies list and checking it twice every night while watching the evening TV newscast.

Bloggers on the Right side of the Blogosphere are up in arms over data suggesting that President Obama’s White House auto industry potentates are targeting for closure Chrysler dealers with records of contributing either to Republicans like John McCain or to other Democrats in the 2008 presidential primary.

Posts at RedState, Reliapundit, American Thinker, Gateway Pundit, Joey Smith and Doug Ross pointed intitially at the remarkable number of closed Chrysler dealerships whose owners happen to have been contributors to Obama opponents, mainly Republicans.
Is Obama closing GOP-leaning car dealers? Opinion Articles - Mark Tapscott | Editorials on Top News Stories | Washington Examiner

4. With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.
HolyCoast.com: Obama Might Have to "Temporarily Bypass the Senate" on Treaty Ratification

Okay, knock it off. Your getting Me all steamy over here...

 

[Bfgrn]

You know, at first, and even at second reading, I thought that your post made no sense.

But I just figured it out. Now I understand your difficulties with my original post.

You don't know what 'provenance' means.

And if you looked up the word, advisable, you were offended by the ideas that propelled Wells, and early 'Liberals,' and feel that they do not apply to your beliefs.

Is that it?

Siegal? Try to use a more erudite source, and possibly an authority who has expertise with reference to Wells, rather than having as his about police in NYC. But I suppose you saw the movie rather than read the book.

The post was intended to show what was once considered 'Liberalism,' and how it was related to conditions that resulted from the Industrial Revolution.

Here is an internet source that might be within your ken:
"In Great Britain and the United States the classic liberal program, including the principles of representative government, the protection of civil liberties, and laissez-faire economics, had been more or less effected by the mid-19th cent. The growth of industrial society, however, soon produced great inequalities in wealth and power, which led many persons, especially workers, to question the liberal creed. It was in reaction to the failure of liberalism to provide a good life for everyone that workers' movements and Marxism arose. Because liberalism is concerned with liberating the individual, however, its doctrines changed with the change in historical realities."
liberalism: Classical Liberalism — Infoplease.com

If you require my analysis of the modern liberal, just let me know.

The classic liberal you describe would be more of a libertarian today. So if we are to believe your time line, Teddy Roosevelt was a modern liberal. And, a case could be made for Thomas Jefferson. He strongly opposed Alexander Hamilton and his desire for industrialization. Jefferson witnessed first hand the human conditions industrialization brought to a society when he was in Europe. Jefferson's vision was an agrarian society.

You really need to educate yourself on the strict limits our founding fathers put on corporations and how the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Supreme Court Case undermined our Constitution....

I can understand Teddy as a classic liberal, though a Republican. Jefferson, not so much. Can you expand on the Jeffersonian position?

Here's a general bio...

Political philosophy

Jefferson was a leader in developing Republicanism in the United States. He insisted that the British aristocratic system was inherently corrupt and that Americans’ devotion to civic virtue required independence. In the 1790s he repeatedly warned that Hamilton and Adams were trying to impose a British-like monarchical system that threatened republicanism. He supported the War of 1812, hoping it would drive away the British military and ideological threat from Canada. Jefferson’s vision for American virtue was that of an agricultural nation of yeoman farmers minding their own affairs. It stood in contrast to the vision of Alexander Hamilton, who envisioned a nation of commerce and manufacturing, which Jefferson said offered too many temptations to corruption. Jefferson’s deep belief in the uniqueness and the potential of America made him the father of American exceptionalism. In particular, he was confident that an under-populated America could avoid what he considered the horrors of class-divided, industrialized Europe.

Jefferson’s republican political principles were heavily influenced by the Country party of 18th century British opposition writers. He was influenced by John Locke (particularly relating to the principle of inalienable rights.) Historians find few traces of any influence by his French contemporary, Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

His opposition to the Bank of the United States was fierce: “I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” Nevertheless Madison and Congress, seeing the financial chaos caused by the lack of a national bank in the War of 1812, disregarded his advice and created the Second Bank of the United States in 1816.

MORE

Here's a more in depth article...

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1519486/Thomas-Jefferson-s-agrarian-vision.html

"I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
President John F. Kennedy (Speaking at a White House dinner for Nobel Prize winners, 1962)

 

[editec]

And like most Pols, the moment he took office he reputiated everything he claimed to stand for by doing things he claimed he opposed.

 

[Annie]

And like most Pols, the moment he took office he reputiated everything he claimed to stand for by doing things he claimed he opposed.

Exactly. I often have been accused of cutting & pasting info, but when I do I try to have an understanding of 'why' it is pertinent to the discussion.

 

[American Horse]

And like most Pols, the moment he took office he reputiated everything he claimed to stand for by doing things he claimed he opposed.

He dropped his ideals in the face of realilty and became pragmatic?

 

[PoliticalChic]

And like most Pols, the moment he took office he reputiated everything he claimed to stand for by doing things he claimed he opposed.

He dropped his ideals in the face of realilty and became pragmatic?

Greetings, AH.

Earlier you asked about the modern liberal.

Actually, I'd like to put together some thoughts on the differences between the liberal, the fellow traveler, and the true believer.

But for now, I'd like to know what you think of these:

1. A Liberals axiom is that harmony is natural, a misreading of human nature. It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.” The result of this belief is that country’s defenses are lowered by liberals, as represented by the Church Committee hearings, the Pike committee, the Torricelli Amendments, all of which tied the hands of the intelligence community, and made it necessary for the Bush Administration to use enhanced interrogation methods. And, of course, the liberal community raged that we were not treating terrorists like our brothers. To gain an understanding of human nature, consider reading The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris.

2. Liberals believe that political philosophy should inform economic policy. So we saw the Community Reinvestment Act, and GRE’s such as Fannie and Freddie, which put pressure on lending institutions to give loans with less stringent requirements.

3. Another liberal axiom is that everyone will behave, not in their own best interests, but in the best interests of society, as in “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” We see this false posit of the way people act in the Employee Free Choice Act, where we are expected to assume that there will not be pressure and intimidation if we do away with the secret ballot.

4. Liberals always see utopia as an attainable goal. At the heart of the philosophy is the view that the supposedly unique wisdom of government officials should be trusted to plan the lives of the people. The term “politburo” seems fitting here. In fact, for many American Liberals, Western Europe has been nothing less than an abstract symbol of progressive utopia. “Liberals seek utopia but reap dystopia.”

5. Liberals hunt for reasons to be insulted the way pigs hunt for truffles. Once they find a satisfactory mote in this category, they feel that it is entirely appropriate for them to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects.

6. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing. We see this in the oft-repeated claim that the use of “torture” techniques has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Where is the proof of this claim?
For liberals, taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem. Feeling passes for knowing.

7. Liberals are childlike in their view of the world. If only we destroy our nuclear weapons, so will our adversaries. Senator Biden, who is today our vice- president, and was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, once advocated a complete on ban covert action. Former New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli thought that the CIA should not associate with unsavory characters. Thus our intell community is blindfolded.

 

[Annie]

And like most Pols, the moment he took office he reputiated everything he claimed to stand for by doing things he claimed he opposed.

He dropped his ideals in the face of realilty and became pragmatic?

Let's just say picking up the Louisiana Purchase was too good to pass up, even though buying real estate was not in Article II of the Constitution. Calling it a treaty was sort of an 'end run'.

 

[editec]

And like most Pols, the moment he took office he reputiated everything he claimed to stand for by doing things he claimed he opposed.

He dropped his ideals in the face of realilty and became pragmatic?

Don't we all, eventually?

 

[editec]

And like most Pols, the moment he took office he reputiated everything he claimed to stand for by doing things he claimed he opposed.

He dropped his ideals in the face of realilty and became pragmatic?

Let's just say picking up the Louisiana Purchase was too good to pass up, even though buying real estate was not in Article II of the Constitution. Calling it a treaty was sort of an 'end run'.

Agreed, it was.

I applaude TJ for abandoning his foolish principles in favor of a well reasoned approach to governing the nation.

Had he not taken advantage of Napoleon's desperate need for cash, and Napoloeon's desire to help the USA be a thorn in the side of England, I'd have thought him a damned fool and a an idiot of a POTUS.

 

[American Horse]

And like most Pols, the moment he took office he reputiated everything he claimed to stand for by doing things he claimed he opposed.

He dropped his ideals in the face of realilty and became pragmatic?

Greetings, AH.

Earlier you asked about the modern liberal.

Actually, I'd like to put together some thoughts on the differences between the liberal, the fellow traveler, and the true believer.

But for now, I'd like to know what you think of these:

1. A Liberals axiom is that harmony is natural, a misreading of human nature. It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.” The result of this belief is that country’s defenses are lowered by liberals, as represented by the Church Committee hearings, the Pike committee, the Torricelli Amendments, all of which tied the hands of the intelligence community, and made it necessary for the Bush Administration to use enhanced interrogation methods. And, of course, the liberal community raged that we were not treating terrorists like our brothers. To gain an understanding of human nature, consider reading The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris.

Before I answer, I believe there are a couple of different liberal types. Those who are in the power game, striving to work their way up through the structure as "public service" a life long occupation in the system, and there are the "minions" (the minor players) who are simply "true believers", whose actions are mildly innocent, but they firmly believe their hearts are in the right place.

Naked Ape - Read it.
And I think most liberals understand human nature better than they let on, but to pretend otherwise is more useful. Thus they don't seem to have a clue about the power of "incentives." But this pretense is more useful to accomplish their goal, a large part of which is polarization, to act out on their initiatives and see where they lead. Since they are “the people” (in the embodiment of the Democrat party -"party of the people") they assume they will always be in power to fix things to their will later. To not seem to aim for harmony would disable their projection that conservatives are divisive; thus their position that Republicans, the embodiment of the conservative creed, are, in the main criminals, criminalizing their policies and actions.

2. Liberals believe that political philosophy should inform economic policy. So we saw the Community Reinvestment Act, and GRE’s such as Fannie and Freddie, which put pressure on lending institutions to give loans with less stringent requirements.

Another charade; their policies allow them to work within the capitalist system to undermine it to their own benefit, to spread the wealth to their supporters. But notice that the GRE structure lends itself to confusion as to its pretext. The conservative has to keep hammering at that deception, lest it be lost on the ordinary person living out their busy lives.

3. Another liberal axiom is that everyone will behave, not in their own best interests, but in the best interests of society, as in “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” We see this false posit of the way people act in the Employee Free Choice Act, where we are expected to assume that there will not be pressure and intimidation if we do away with the secret ballot.

They know that people will behave in their own best interests; and believe it firmly. That’s why they are always complaining that Republican minions vote against their own best interests when they vote in favor of business, both small and large. Its anomalous that certain people would not cheat or use intimidation if it enabled them to gain their goals with its use.

4. Liberals always see utopia as an attainable goal. At the heart of the philosophy is the view that the supposedly unique wisdom of government officials should be trusted to plan the lives of the people. The term “politburo” seems fitting here. In fact, for many American Liberals, Western Europe has been nothing less than an abstract symbol of progressive utopia. “Liberals seek utopia but reap dystopia.”

To pretend that utopia is an attainable goal is the only way to drive the “true believers” amongst them to follow using their passion of frustration as a politically uniting force. If it were not attainable, they would direct their passions (of frustration) to otherwise practical attainable goals. Although most liberals are doing fine they spend a lot of their passion in defense of the underprivileged, or the deprived, or the underdog, a noble cause, which wins hearts and minds. Their efforts are generally macro instead of micro; focused on this or that element of humanity instead of the individual who must instead be clumped together as “losers”; thus Algore or Biden, or any liberal gives only a pittance to charity, because it is more useful to transfer wealth on a grand scale to the needy.

5. Liberals hunt for reasons to be insulted the way pigs hunt for truffles. Once they find a satisfactory mote in this category, they feel that it is entirely appropriate for them to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects.

Of course they do, because it keeps their issues to the fore. They enjoy the fight. Notice they are always “fighting for” something. Words pass for accomplishments; issues resolved are issues lost.

6. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing. We see this in the oft-repeated claim that the use of “torture” techniques has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Where is the proof of this claim?
For liberals, taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem. Feeling passes for knowing.

And this passes for logic, while the conservative idea of letting everyone have arms seems irrational to them. The proof is in the pudding. Just the knowledge that everyone in town could possibly have a concealed weapon is a deterrent against using a weapon for crime in that town. The natural inclination, then, would be to take one’s criminal inclinations to a district where weapons were prohibited, leaving everyone unguarded.

7. Liberals are childlike in their view of the world. If only we destroy our nuclear weapons, so will our adversaries. Senator Biden, who is today our vice- president, and was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, once advocated a complete on ban covert action. Former New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli thought that the CIA should not associate with unsavory characters. Thus our intell community is blindfolded.

This follows the same pattern of taking guns away from lawful citizens, or perhaps police going under-cover to reveal the plans of the enemy; the danger of becoming them. But that childlike view passes for logic to their minions.

In tandem to your Naked Ape mention I recommend The True Believer for an understanding of the nature of mass movements (Eric Hoffer). It is eye opening.

 

[Bfgrn]

And like most Pols, the moment he took office he reputiated everything he claimed to stand for by doing things he claimed he opposed.

He dropped his ideals in the face of realilty and became pragmatic?

Greetings, AH.

Earlier you asked about the modern liberal.

Actually, I'd like to put together some thoughts on the differences between the liberal, the fellow traveler, and the true believer.

But for now, I'd like to know what you think of these:

1. A Liberals axiom is that harmony is natural, a misreading of human nature. It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.” The result of this belief is that country’s defenses are lowered by liberals, as represented by the Church Committee hearings, the Pike committee, the Torricelli Amendments, all of which tied the hands of the intelligence community, and made it necessary for the Bush Administration to use enhanced interrogation methods. And, of course, the liberal community raged that we were not treating terrorists like our brothers. To gain an understanding of human nature, consider reading The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris.

2. Liberals believe that political philosophy should inform economic policy. So we saw the Community Reinvestment Act, and GRE’s such as Fannie and Freddie, which put pressure on lending institutions to give loans with less stringent requirements.

3. Another liberal axiom is that everyone will behave, not in their own best interests, but in the best interests of society, as in “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” We see this false posit of the way people act in the Employee Free Choice Act, where we are expected to assume that there will not be pressure and intimidation if we do away with the secret ballot.

4. Liberals always see utopia as an attainable goal. At the heart of the philosophy is the view that the supposedly unique wisdom of government officials should be trusted to plan the lives of the people. The term “politburo” seems fitting here. In fact, for many American Liberals, Western Europe has been nothing less than an abstract symbol of progressive utopia. “Liberals seek utopia but reap dystopia.”

5. Liberals hunt for reasons to be insulted the way pigs hunt for truffles. Once they find a satisfactory mote in this category, they feel that it is entirely appropriate for them to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects.

6. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing. We see this in the oft-repeated claim that the use of “torture” techniques has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Where is the proof of this claim?
For liberals, taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem. Feeling passes for knowing.

7. Liberals are childlike in their view of the world. If only we destroy our nuclear weapons, so will our adversaries. Senator Biden, who is today our vice- president, and was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, once advocated a complete on ban covert action. Former New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli thought that the CIA should not associate with unsavory characters. Thus our intell community is blindfolded.

PC, you do not speak for liberals and what they believe...but your mindless diatribe speaks volumes about YOU, your huge insecurities, your inability to live in a free society and your overwhelming FEAR...

The flip side of "your liberal world" is YOUR world rife with secrecy, oppression, suppression and regression...

Thomas Jefferson and Harry Truman knew your type PC...they warned about you...

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination.
President Harry S. Truman

 

[midcan5]

Would you mind pointing out two or three of the items in the post which you find to be untrue?

Lie 1 - Wells as 'Godfather,' only in Siegal's narrow mind. Notice he selected no liberal thinker: Rawls, Berlin, Waldron, Williams, Keynes, et al.
lie 2 - "Modern American liberalism, as it emerged in the 1920s, was animated by a revolt against the masses." Did he miss FDR and his help for the masses?
Lie 3 - the fact some people who he classified as being liberal saw Wells as a visionary is irrelevant and not provable. It is not exactly a lie but the entire piece is BS.

The author wanted to criticize liberalism, he chose Wells because Wells fit his preconceived idiocy. It makes no sense to any educated reader.

Your post #48 would win a award for "tired cliches with no relation to reality" believed because - damn, I have no idea why anyone would believe this stuff. I know they are conservative talking points (see my post below) that only make sense if you operate inside the conservative echo chamber. The cliches are old and useless as well as wrong.

Conservatism as I noted above is basically, maybe wholly, reactionary. There are no specific accomplishment one can point to as conservative. There are lots of slowdowns but nothing consensus positive. You can see this from Burke onward, he didn't like the French Revolution but if one can show me what he accomplished, do so. A short list of reactionary conservative opposition to progress is listed here: A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla And I have asked this question several times on-line and have yet to get a good answer. See my: What is a conservative? – Political Pass

Do this easy thought experiment. Place yourself in a cave with a conservative and a liberal. One will argue that change is not possible, that leaving the cave will be dangerous, that raising crops is not possible and will ruin hunting; the other will say let's try it, I think it can work, this cave is dark and dingy, I like the sun, and we can do better. One can then extrapolate to any historic time and use our two people. Slavery - suffrage - equal rights - welfare - better working conditions - labor laws - minimum wage - social security, you name them and you know who will move forward and who will stand still. Albert Hirschman who I url-ed above calls this reactionary tactic by three thesis tags: Perversity, futility, and jeopardy. Or 'it will make things worse, it won't work, or it will ruin existing structure. That is conservatism in nutshell today and maybe always. And the only area in which I see conservative allow change is in corporate power, at that altar conservatives worship - to the detriment of America's working class and often to the detriment of the world.

But I am conservative too, but not in the conservative think tank slogan form. I love - actually as a liberal 'love' is a bit much but I'll go with it - this country, I buy American, I support American working people, I will probably never shop in walmart, I want English only, I think public education should be free and diverse, but as a liberal I think we can do better than the cave.


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Freedoms-Power-History-Promise-Liberalism/dp/0465081878/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247237862&sr=1-4]Amazon.com: Freedom's Power: The History and Promise of Liberalism: Paul Starr: Books[/ame]
Liberalism in Arms

 

[PoliticalChic]

He dropped his ideals in the face of realilty and became pragmatic?

Greetings, AH.

Earlier you asked about the modern liberal.

Actually, I'd like to put together some thoughts on the differences between the liberal, the fellow traveler, and the true believer.

But for now, I'd like to know what you think of these:

1. A Liberals axiom is that harmony is natural, a misreading of human nature. It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.” The result of this belief is that country’s defenses are lowered by liberals, as represented by the Church Committee hearings, the Pike committee, the Torricelli Amendments, all of which tied the hands of the intelligence community, and made it necessary for the Bush Administration to use enhanced interrogation methods. And, of course, the liberal community raged that we were not treating terrorists like our brothers. To gain an understanding of human nature, consider reading The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris.

2. Liberals believe that political philosophy should inform economic policy. So we saw the Community Reinvestment Act, and GRE’s such as Fannie and Freddie, which put pressure on lending institutions to give loans with less stringent requirements.

3. Another liberal axiom is that everyone will behave, not in their own best interests, but in the best interests of society, as in “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” We see this false posit of the way people act in the Employee Free Choice Act, where we are expected to assume that there will not be pressure and intimidation if we do away with the secret ballot.

4. Liberals always see utopia as an attainable goal. At the heart of the philosophy is the view that the supposedly unique wisdom of government officials should be trusted to plan the lives of the people. The term “politburo” seems fitting here. In fact, for many American Liberals, Western Europe has been nothing less than an abstract symbol of progressive utopia. “Liberals seek utopia but reap dystopia.”

5. Liberals hunt for reasons to be insulted the way pigs hunt for truffles. Once they find a satisfactory mote in this category, they feel that it is entirely appropriate for them to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects.

6. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing. We see this in the oft-repeated claim that the use of “torture” techniques has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Where is the proof of this claim?
For liberals, taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem. Feeling passes for knowing.

7. Liberals are childlike in their view of the world. If only we destroy our nuclear weapons, so will our adversaries. Senator Biden, who is today our vice- president, and was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, once advocated a complete on ban covert action. Former New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli thought that the CIA should not associate with unsavory characters. Thus our intell community is blindfolded.

PC, you do not speak for liberals and what they believe...but your mindless diatribe speaks volumes about YOU, your huge insecurities, your inability to live in a free society and your overwhelming FEAR...

The flip side of "your liberal world" is YOUR world rife with secrecy, oppression, suppression and regression...

Thomas Jefferson and Harry Truman knew your type PC...they warned about you...

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination.
President Harry S. Truman

It would be flattering to think that "Thomas Jefferson and Harry Truman knew [my] type..." but as I read your post, Shakespeare comes to mind: "The Devil can quote scriptures for his purpose."

But don't let it go to your head, I'm not saying that your degree of confusion is comparable to Satan's evil.

Rather, you seem to lack the interest in actually confronting my oh-so-specific points. No doubt your experience in the public schools has left you with a sense of being entitled to a second, and even a third chance to get it right.

So be it. Have another go. To make it easier for you, I've tried to reduce my verbiage.

Item #1 Would you like to argue the point that Democrat administrations have reduced our military and intell defenses?

Item #2 Do you deny that sans the CRA and GRE's, Democrat creations, the current financial crisis would not have happened?

Item #3 Would you argue that under Democrat auspices the rich and successful are not taxed to provide for, in many cases, those who choose not to embark on business ventures, show ambition, or take risks?

Item #4 Are you ready to claim that Democrats do not invest in big government, vast regulation, and statutes that give rise to the appellation 'nanny state'?

Item #5 Have you not noted that every Republican is always cast as being dumb, and real ninnys like President Carter are referred to as " the smartest president he ever met..." (Walter Cronkite)

Item #6 Being a liberal means requiring no proof for a statement, as in "taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem." Have you read John Lott's well documented "More Guns, Less Crime"?

Item #7 speaks for itself, as do the others, actually. The Church Committee, Biden, Leahy, Torricelli, etc. all fought to limit, hamstring, and obviate our attempts to remain ahead of our enemies. The 'Can't We All Just Get Along' wing of the Congress, and all Democrat liberals.

Unlike your last feeble attempt, you will lose points for every item you leave out.

Summer School beckons.

 

[PoliticalChic]

He dropped his ideals in the face of realilty and became pragmatic?

Greetings, AH.

Earlier you asked about the modern liberal.

Actually, I'd like to put together some thoughts on the differences between the liberal, the fellow traveler, and the true believer.

But for now, I'd like to know what you think of these:

1. A Liberals axiom is that harmony is natural, a misreading of human nature. It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.” The result of this belief is that country’s defenses are lowered by liberals, as represented by the Church Committee hearings, the Pike committee, the Torricelli Amendments, all of which tied the hands of the intelligence community, and made it necessary for the Bush Administration to use enhanced interrogation methods. And, of course, the liberal community raged that we were not treating terrorists like our brothers. To gain an understanding of human nature, consider reading The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris.

Before I answer, I believe there are a couple of different liberal types. Those who are in the power game, striving to work their way up through the structure as "public service" a life long occupation in the system, and there are the "minions" (the minor players) who are simply "true believers", whose actions are mildly innocent, but they firmly believe their hearts are in the right place.

Naked Ape - Read it.
And I think most liberals understand human nature better than they let on, but to pretend otherwise is more useful. Thus they don't seem to have a clue about the power of "incentives." But this pretense is more useful to accomplish their goal, a large part of which is polarization, to act out on their initiatives and see where they lead. Since they are “the people” (in the embodiment of the Democrat party -"party of the people") they assume they will always be in power to fix things to their will later. To not seem to aim for harmony would disable their projection that conservatives are divisive; thus their position that Republicans, the embodiment of the conservative creed, are, in the main criminals, criminalizing their policies and actions.


Another charade; their policies allow them to work within the capitalist system to undermine it to their own benefit, to spread the wealth to their supporters. But notice that the GRE structure lends itself to confusion as to its pretext. The conservative has to keep hammering at that deception, lest it be lost on the ordinary person living out their busy lives.



They know that people will behave in their own best interests; and believe it firmly. That’s why they are always complaining that Republican minions vote against their own best interests when they vote in favor of business, both small and large. Its anomalous that certain people would not cheat or use intimidation if it enabled them to gain their goals with its use.



To pretend that utopia is an attainable goal is the only way to drive the “true believers” amongst them to follow using their passion of frustration as a politically uniting force. If it were not attainable, they would direct their passions (of frustration) to otherwise practical attainable goals. Although most liberals are doing fine they spend a lot of their passion in defense of the underprivileged, or the deprived, or the underdog, a noble cause, which wins hearts and minds. Their efforts are generally macro instead of micro; focused on this or that element of humanity instead of the individual who must instead be clumped together as “losers”; thus Algore or Biden, or any liberal gives only a pittance to charity, because it is more useful to transfer wealth on a grand scale to the needy.




Of course they do, because it keeps their issues to the fore. They enjoy the fight. Notice they are always “fighting for” something. Words pass for accomplishments; issues resolved are issues lost.

6. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing. We see this in the oft-repeated claim that the use of “torture” techniques has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Where is the proof of this claim?
For liberals, taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem. Feeling passes for knowing.

And this passes for logic, while the conservative idea of letting everyone have arms seems irrational to them. The proof is in the pudding. Just the knowledge that everyone in town could possibly have a concealed weapon is a deterrent against using a weapon for crime in that town. The natural inclination, then, would be to take one’s criminal inclinations to a district where weapons were prohibited, leaving everyone unguarded.

7. Liberals are childlike in their view of the world. If only we destroy our nuclear weapons, so will our adversaries. Senator Biden, who is today our vice- president, and was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, once advocated a complete on ban covert action. Former New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli thought that the CIA should not associate with unsavory characters. Thus our intell community is blindfolded.

This follows the same pattern of taking guns away from lawful citizens, or perhaps police going under-cover to reveal the plans of the enemy; the danger of becoming them. But that childlike view passes for logic to their minions.

In tandem to your Naked Ape mention I recommend The True Believer for an understanding of the nature of mass movements (Eric Hoffer). It is eye opening.

Yes. And I was going to use the Hoffer idea that those with a sense of fulfillment think that the world is good, as opposed to liberals.

And, of course, I like you main thesis that there are several kinds of liberals. I've been thinking about delineating same, and will in a future post.

And, I agree that without separating the types of liberals, it is difficult to discuss the source and examples of their errors.

But sadly, and ultimately, I am afraid that we lose the war as long as the schools, at every level, are filled with liberals. You would like us to hammer at the false beliefs, but, alas, they have claimed the heights, in the schools and the media.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Would you mind pointing out two or three of the items in the post which you find to be untrue?

Lie 1 - Wells as 'Godfather,' only in Siegal's narrow mind. Notice he selected no liberal thinker: Rawls, Berlin, Waldron, Williams, Keynes, et al.
lie 2 - "Modern American liberalism, as it emerged in the 1920s, was animated by a revolt against the masses." Did he miss FDR and his help for the masses?
Lie 3 - the fact some people who he classified as being liberal saw Wells as a visionary is irrelevant and not provable. It is not exactly a lie but the entire piece is BS.

The author wanted to criticize liberalism, he chose Wells because Wells fit his preconceived idiocy. It makes no sense to any educated reader.

Your post #48 would win a award for "tired cliches with no relation to reality" believed because - damn, I have no idea why anyone would believe this stuff. I know they are conservative talking points (see my post below) that only make sense if you operate inside the conservative echo chamber. The cliches are old and useless as well as wrong.

Conservatism as I noted above is basically, maybe wholly, reactionary. There are no specific accomplishment one can point to as conservative. There are lots of slowdowns but nothing consensus positive. You can see this from Burke onward, he didn't like the French Revolution but if one can show me what he accomplished, do so. A short list of reactionary conservative opposition to progress is listed here: A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla And I have asked this question several times on-line and have yet to get a good answer. See my: What is a conservative? – Political Pass

Do this easy thought experiment. Place yourself in a cave with a conservative and a liberal. One will argue that change is not possible, that leaving the cave will be dangerous, that raising crops is not possible and will ruin hunting; the other will say let's try it, I think it can work, this cave is dark and dingy, I like the sun, and we can do better. One can then extrapolate to any historic time and use our two people. Slavery - suffrage - equal rights - welfare - better working conditions - labor laws - minimum wage - social security, you name them and you know who will move forward and who will stand still. Albert Hirschman who I url-ed above calls this reactionary tactic by three thesis tags: Perversity, futility, and jeopardy. Or 'it will make things worse, it won't work, or it will ruin existing structure. That is conservatism in nutshell today and maybe always. And the only area in which I see conservative allow change is in corporate power, at that altar conservatives worship - to the detriment of America's working class and often to the detriment of the world.

But I am conservative too, but not in the conservative think tank slogan form. I love - actually as a liberal 'love' is a bit much but I'll go with it - this country, I buy American, I support American working people, I will probably never shop in walmart, I want English only, I think public education should be free and diverse, but as a liberal I think we can do better than the cave.


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Freedoms-Power-History-Promise-Liberalism/dp/0465081878/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247237862&sr=1-4]Amazon.com: Freedom's Power: The History and Promise of Liberalism: Paul Starr: Books[/ame]
Liberalism in Arms

Forgive me for not responding to this one point by point, but it's been a long day- just took the kids to Central Park Victorian Gardens. Highly recommend.

But as a general response, have you seen the recent polls, which include
"Fifty-four percent (54%) of U.S. voters say the average Democrat in Congress is more liberal than they are..."
and
"Interestingly, despite big gains in last November’s election which further strengthened Democratic control over both houses of Congress, voters are more likely to say congressional Republicans have about the same views they do than Democrats – by a 33% to 26% margin."
and
"...Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Republicans and 59% of voters not affiliated with either party say the average Democrat in Congress is more liberal than they are. "
Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere
and
"For the second straight month, voters are more likely to trust Republicans than Democrats on the economy."
Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere
and
"Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election, Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to 18%,...more members of all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted to the right rather than to the left...These findings, from a June 14-17 Gallup Poll, somewhat conform to Gallup’s annual trends on Americans’ self-defined political ideology. Thus far in 2009 (from January through May), 40% of Americans call themselves conservative, up from 37% in 2007 and 2008, and the highest level since 2004"
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Rasmussen: Obama still slipping

So, when I read "conservative talking points... that only make sense if you operate inside the conservative echo chamber. The cliches are old and useless as well as wrong," I think I see a bit of perspiration on your upper lip, and hear you whistling past the graveyard.

When I look at those polls, and recall that McCain, as weak a candidate as he was, was actually ahead prior to the financial meltdown, I, and the rest of the " conservative echo chamber" may be engaging in some awesome acapella.

 

[MaggieMae]

Mind if I give this part a whirl? (I'll do it my way, simply because I think it's easier to follow than copying every point.)

Item #1 Would you like to argue the point that Democrat administrations have reduced our military and intell defenses?

We continue to have the strongest and most powerful weapons on earth. There is no fixed analysis on how good (or how bad) our intelligence agencies perform because the intracacies are not public knowledge to begin with.

Item #2 Do you deny that sans the CRA and GRE's, Democrat creations, the current financial crisis would not have happened?

Yes, denied. Federal Reserve Board data show that:

•More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
•Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
•Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.
That law would be the aforementioned Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

While Fannie and Freddie were a small part of the problem, the mortgage failure actually happened as Fannie and Freddie were reducing their holdings of subprime mortgages by a factor of 2, from 48% to 24% between 2004 and 2006. In fact, in 2005 and 2006, private investment banks stopped using Fannie and Freddie for 2/3rds of all the mortgages they initiated, preferring instead to package them into questionable mortgage-backed securities.

Item #3 Would you argue that under Democrat auspices the rich and successful are not taxed to provide for, in many cases, those who choose not to embark on business ventures, show ambition, or take risks?

Income tax bracketing began in 1917. Other than that, you'll need to show which programs where the wealthy have been specifically taxed in order to support a program solely for slackers or the poor.

Item #4 Are you ready to claim that Democrats do not invest in big government, vast regulation, and statutes that give rise to the appellation 'nanny state'?

Democrats believe that any public necessity to sustain the citizenry in general (i.e., financial institutions, transportation infrastructure, food, housing, utilities) should be regulated. The "nanny state" is a lame exaggeration and has become a worn-out catch phrase. Republicans don't try to diminish necessary 'welfare' programs that sustain life either.

Item #5 Have you not noted that every Republican is always cast as being dumb, and real ninnys like President Carter are referred to as " the smartest president he ever met..." (Walter Cronkite)

Oh that's a crock. When a Republican says something dumb, it's rightfully called dumb. When a liberal says something dumb, s/he's usually called even worse (or perhaps you should re-read some of your own posts).

Item #6 Being a liberal means requiring no proof for a statement, as in "taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem." Have you read John Lott's well documented "More Guns, Less Crime"?

Another crock. I for one post link after link after link to support most of what I say on this board and many others do too. That said, why is it so awful for a lib to make a generalized opinion like you put in quotes? You mean you do not ever offer a simple statement unless it's one from one of your tomes? And no, I for one have enough reading material to last me another lifetime, and I don't intend to read all of your supporting data in addition to my own less radical conservative publications. John Lott isn't part of that pile yet.

Item #7 speaks for itself, as do the others, actually. The Church Committee, Biden, Leahy, Torricelli, etc. all fought to limit, hamstring, and obviate our attempts to remain ahead of our enemies. The 'Can't We All Just Get Along' wing of the Congress, and all Democrat liberals.

Well that's a whole 'nuther topic completely. Quite simply, the "new" enemy (terrorism) is a method and it's not as easy "staying ahead" of something that's intangible.

Unlike your last feeble attempt, you will lose points for every item you leave out.

Summer School beckons.

See that last one shouts out your failure at credibility. Anyone who doesn't lock into your rabid idealism is considered "feeble" (see your #5). You are NOT always 'right.' Just because you are well schooled in Ayn Rand conservatism doesn't mean even that can apply to today's plethora of social problems. It leaves out a whole new set of problems that she never dreamed would happen.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maggie, long time no see.

Item #1 Would you like to argue the point that Democrat administrations have reduced our military and intell defenses?

We continue to have the strongest and most powerful weapons on earth. There is no fixed analysis on how good (or how bad) our intelligence agencies perform because the intracacies are not public knowledge to begin with.

Item #2 Do you deny that sans the CRA and GRE's, Democrat creations, the current financial crisis would not have happened?

Yes, denied. Federal Reserve Board data show that:

•More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
•Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
•Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.
That law would be the aforementioned Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

While Fannie and Freddie were a small part of the problem, the mortgage failure actually happened as Fannie and Freddie were reducing their holdings of subprime mortgages by a factor of 2, from 48% to 24% between 2004 and 2006. In fact, in 2005 and 2006, private investment banks stopped using Fannie and Freddie for 2/3rds of all the mortgages they initiated, preferring instead to package them into questionable mortgage-backed securities.

Item #3 Would you argue that under Democrat auspices the rich and successful are not taxed to provide for, in many cases, those who choose not to embark on business ventures, show ambition, or take risks?

Income tax bracketing began in 1917. Other than that, you'll need to show which programs where the wealthy have been specifically taxed in order to support a program solely for slackers or the poor.

Item #4 Are you ready to claim that Democrats do not invest in big government, vast regulation, and statutes that give rise to the appellation 'nanny state'?

Democrats believe that any public necessity to sustain the citizenry in general (i.e., financial institutions, transportation infrastructure, food, housing, utilities) should be regulated. The "nanny state" is a lame exaggeration and has become a worn-out catch phrase. Republicans don't try to diminish necessary 'welfare' programs that sustain life either.

Item #5 Have you not noted that every Republican is always cast as being dumb, and real ninnys like President Carter are referred to as " the smartest president he ever met..." (Walter Cronkite)

Oh that's a crock. When a Republican says something dumb, it's rightfully called dumb. When a liberal says something dumb, s/he's usually called even worse (or perhaps you should re-read some of your own posts).

Item #6 Being a liberal means requiring no proof for a statement, as in "taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem." Have you read John Lott's well documented "More Guns, Less Crime"?

Another crock. I for one post link after link after link to support most of what I say on this board and many others do too. That said, why is it so awful for a lib to make a generalized opinion like you put in quotes? You mean you do not ever offer a simple statement unless it's one from one of your tomes? And no, I for one have enough reading material to last me another lifetime, and I don't intend to read all of your supporting data in addition to my own less radical conservative publications. John Lott isn't part of that pile yet.

Item #7 speaks for itself, as do the others, actually. The Church Committee, Biden, Leahy, Torricelli, etc. all fought to limit, hamstring, and obviate our attempts to remain ahead of our enemies. The 'Can't We All Just Get Along' wing of the Congress, and all Democrat liberals.

Well that's a whole 'nuther topic completely. Quite simply, the "new" enemy (terrorism) is a method and it's not as easy "staying ahead" of something that's intangible.


Rather than a whirl, your response to #1 is a tap dance. You did not respond to the question.

And the response to #2 is equally flawed. Rather than 2006, let's beging with 1938 for the GRE's. Since economics is less than a science, we don't know the time frame for catastrophic results of a given policy. Except for he current one. 70 years. Without the GRE's, the Democrat party, and the CRA, the imposition of strictly fiduciary principles would have obviated the meltdown.

Item #3 "which programs where the wealthy have been specifically taxed in order to support a program solely for slackers or the poor". Which programs are not funded by taxation? Or does it depend on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. You said slackers, not I. Taxation itself is the question. Democrats believe in higher, even confiscatory taxation. Repubs, lower taxes. Later, for what is a fair level. Tough argument for you in the light of the current administration.

Answer #4 is another example of tap dancing.

#5 You are usually more honest than this. Many studies indicate that Democrats get far better and slanted press than Repubs.

#6 I am generally the solipsist around her, but you seem to think this is the Maggie-thread. This thread is about liberals in general, not specifically about you. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't try to wear it. My statement #6 is accurate.

It's clear why you don't want to face #7.

 

[Bfgrn]

Greetings, AH.

Earlier you asked about the modern liberal.

Actually, I'd like to put together some thoughts on the differences between the liberal, the fellow traveler, and the true believer.

But for now, I'd like to know what you think of these:

1. A Liberals axiom is that harmony is natural, a misreading of human nature. It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.” The result of this belief is that country’s defenses are lowered by liberals, as represented by the Church Committee hearings, the Pike committee, the Torricelli Amendments, all of which tied the hands of the intelligence community, and made it necessary for the Bush Administration to use enhanced interrogation methods. And, of course, the liberal community raged that we were not treating terrorists like our brothers. To gain an understanding of human nature, consider reading The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris.

2. Liberals believe that political philosophy should inform economic policy. So we saw the Community Reinvestment Act, and GRE’s such as Fannie and Freddie, which put pressure on lending institutions to give loans with less stringent requirements.

3. Another liberal axiom is that everyone will behave, not in their own best interests, but in the best interests of society, as in “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” We see this false posit of the way people act in the Employee Free Choice Act, where we are expected to assume that there will not be pressure and intimidation if we do away with the secret ballot.

4. Liberals always see utopia as an attainable goal. At the heart of the philosophy is the view that the supposedly unique wisdom of government officials should be trusted to plan the lives of the people. The term “politburo” seems fitting here. In fact, for many American Liberals, Western Europe has been nothing less than an abstract symbol of progressive utopia. “Liberals seek utopia but reap dystopia.”

5. Liberals hunt for reasons to be insulted the way pigs hunt for truffles. Once they find a satisfactory mote in this category, they feel that it is entirely appropriate for them to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects.

6. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing. We see this in the oft-repeated claim that the use of “torture” techniques has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Where is the proof of this claim?
For liberals, taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem. Feeling passes for knowing.

7. Liberals are childlike in their view of the world. If only we destroy our nuclear weapons, so will our adversaries. Senator Biden, who is today our vice- president, and was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, once advocated a complete on ban covert action. Former New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli thought that the CIA should not associate with unsavory characters. Thus our intell community is blindfolded.

PC, you do not speak for liberals and what they believe...but your mindless diatribe speaks volumes about YOU, your huge insecurities, your inability to live in a free society and your overwhelming FEAR...

The flip side of "your liberal world" is YOUR world rife with secrecy, oppression, suppression and regression...

Thomas Jefferson and Harry Truman knew your type PC...they warned about you...

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination.
President Harry S. Truman

It would be flattering to think that "Thomas Jefferson and Harry Truman knew [my] type..." but as I read your post, Shakespeare comes to mind: "The Devil can quote scriptures for his purpose."

But don't let it go to your head, I'm not saying that your degree of confusion is comparable to Satan's evil.

Rather, you seem to lack the interest in actually confronting my oh-so-specific points. No doubt your experience in the public schools has left you with a sense of being entitled to a second, and even a third chance to get it right.

So be it. Have another go. To make it easier for you, I've tried to reduce my verbiage.

Item #1 Would you like to argue the point that Democrat administrations have reduced our military and intell defenses?

Item #2 Do you deny that sans the CRA and GRE's, Democrat creations, the current financial crisis would not have happened?

Item #3 Would you argue that under Democrat auspices the rich and successful are not taxed to provide for, in many cases, those who choose not to embark on business ventures, show ambition, or take risks?

Item #4 Are you ready to claim that Democrats do not invest in big government, vast regulation, and statutes that give rise to the appellation 'nanny state'?

Item #5 Have you not noted that every Republican is always cast as being dumb, and real ninnys like President Carter are referred to as " the smartest president he ever met..." (Walter Cronkite)

Item #6 Being a liberal means requiring no proof for a statement, as in "taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem." Have you read John Lott's well documented "More Guns, Less Crime"?

Item #7 speaks for itself, as do the others, actually. The Church Committee, Biden, Leahy, Torricelli, etc. all fought to limit, hamstring, and obviate our attempts to remain ahead of our enemies. The 'Can't We All Just Get Along' wing of the Congress, and all Democrat liberals.

Unlike your last feeble attempt, you will lose points for every item you leave out.

Summer School beckons.

This is really quite funny PC...thank you...ALL you're doing is PROVING my point: "The basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil...thus, conservatism is based of FEAR...the strongest human emotion..."

How funny that you CAN understand how the events on 911 galvanized and mobilized OUR nation against an "enemy" ...

BUT you CAN'T even fathom that subversive activities America engaged in could have the SAME effect on others...HOW is that being a thinking person PC, where is the logic and cognitive thought? Instead, you speak from total emotion...FEAR

How funny that you CAN accuse Democrats of creating big government, because they try to help our citizens, follow the basic laws of civics and the tenets of wise men like Abraham Lincoln: "The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."

BUT, you CAN'T see that big military, big surveillance programs and a big prison system IS big government that is very expensive, intrusive, and an oppressive NANNY state...HOW is that being a thinking person PC, where is the logic and cognitive thought? Instead, you speak from total emotion...FEAR

Most of your numbered points have been debunked by me in previous posts...do we have to go through them every single time we talk PC??? BTW, how DID Georges Clemenceau's need to severely punish Germany work out in the Treaty of Versailles, has something changed since the last time I destroyed your contention?

You either need to quell your overwhelming FEAR and educate yourself on the courage required to live in a free and open society and KEEP it that way, OR you should move to a country that has a dictator that will make you FEEL warm, fuzzy and secure...

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither.
Benjamin Franklin

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Abraham Lincoln