What Leftism Does to People

[Foxfyre]

A rebuttal might have to be convoluted, but it certainly isn't.

And of course there are still two or three here who continue to make convoluted arguments that they can no way support.

It would be an interesting discussion if somebody on the leftist side did come up with a reasoned argument for why Klavan is wrong. But alas, nobody has. They all just defend leftism by declaring conservatism and/or conservatives or at least certain conservatives to be bad/awful but they have yet come up with any way to support that. I wish USMB would recruit some leftists who could debate these things with anything other than 'the topic sucks' or 'conservatism sucks' or 'Foxfyre (or pick your target of choice) sucks' or whatever red herrings or straw men they come up with to deflect the subject to something else. I would love to have this discussion with a Juan Williams or Michael Kinsley or Camille Paglia or another brilliant liberal that I admire greatly.

But oh well.

To rebut it, the violence, among other things, would have to be condoned, as you said. I suspect many do condone that violence, especially based on many posters' rhetoric who fervently support OWS (ie. our recent influx of propagandists); it's a default position in supporting OWS, at this point.

However, Klaven could just have easily written an essay reversing left and right and substituting some whacked-out militia or religious group.

So, in my book, his essay is a wash.

However, what I will take home from it is that more and more entitlements lead us to becoming not much of anything, individually. That's nothing new to me. It's history repeating.

Gee I don't get to cross swords with you hardly ever, so this is a real treat.

But on this one I simply must.

I disagree that Klavan could have reversed his thesis by saying conservatism makes people awful by substituting some whacked-out-militia or religious group. Whacked out militia or religious groups are not modern American conservatives (MACs) The militia groups are mostly anarchists and no MAC would ever condone anarchy. The militant religious groups who demand the federal government impose the laws that THEY want imposed re their religious beliefs are also anathema to MACs. They are not modern American conservatives. They are pro big government control and big government authoritarianism that actually makes them more left than right in that point of view. They also are prone to trample on the unaiienable rights of others to have their way which MACs universally condemn.

I have seen no evidence that modern American conservatism promotes anything other than protection of unalienable rights, individual liberty, patriotism, and a belief that personal responsibility and accountability is the salvation of the America we have known and loved. I honestly cannot think of any illustration of any MAC group that would be open for the kind of criticism that the destructive Occupy groups deserve.

A few of our leftist friends here say they condemn the actions of the destructive Occupy groups, but they at the same time point out how 'mainstream' they are, how normal and justified in anger they are, etc. etc. etc.

So we are back to the conundrum. Either leftism is the catalyst of such antisocial behavior among large groups of people or it isn't. Limited by the shortness of the essay, Klavan makes a really good case that it is.

 

[Si modo]

And of course there are still two or three here who continue to make convoluted arguments that they can no way support.

It would be an interesting discussion if somebody on the leftist side did come up with a reasoned argument for why Klavan is wrong. But alas, nobody has. They all just defend leftism by declaring conservatism and/or conservatives or at least certain conservatives to be bad/awful but they have yet come up with any way to support that. I wish USMB would recruit some leftists who could debate these things with anything other than 'the topic sucks' or 'conservatism sucks' or 'Foxfyre (or pick your target of choice) sucks' or whatever red herrings or straw men they come up with to deflect the subject to something else. I would love to have this discussion with a Juan Williams or Michael Kinsley or Camille Paglia or another brilliant liberal that I admire greatly.

But oh well.

To rebut it, the violence, among other things, would have to be condoned, as you said. I suspect many do condone that violence, especially based on many posters' rhetoric who fervently support OWS (ie. our recent influx of propagandists); it's a default position in supporting OWS, at this point.

However, Klaven could just have easily written an essay reversing left and right and substituting some whacked-out militia or religious group.

So, in my book, his essay is a wash.

However, what I will take home from it is that more and more entitlements lead us to becoming not much of anything, individually. That's nothing new to me. It's history repeating.

Gee I don't get to cross swords with you hardly ever, so this is a real treat.

But on this one I simply must.

I disagree that Klavan could have reversed his thesis by saying conservatism makes people awful by substituting some whacked-out-militia or religious group. Whacked out militia or religious groups are not modern American conservatives (MACs) The militia groups are mostly anarchists and no MAC would ever condone anarchy. The militant religious groups who demand the federal government impose the laws that THEY want imposed re their religious beliefs are also anathema to MACs. They are not modern American conservatives. They are pro big government control and big government authoritarianism that actually makes them more left than right in that point of view. They also are prone to trample on the unaiienable rights of others to have their way which MACs universally condemn.

I have seen no evidence that modern American conservatism promotes anything other than protection of unalienable rights, individual liberty, patriotism, and a belief that personal responsibility and accountability is the salvation of the America we have known and loved. I honestly cannot think of any illustration of any MAC group that would be open for the kind of criticism that the destructive Occupy groups deserve.

A few of our leftist friends here say they condemn the actions of the destructive Occupy groups, but they at the same time point out how 'mainstream' they are, how normal and justified in anger they are, etc. etc. etc.

So we are back to the conundrum. Either leftism is the catalyst of such antisocial behavior among large groups of people or it isn't. Limited by the shortness of the essay, Klavan makes a really good case that it is.

But, couldn't some on the left say the same thing you just said: The OWS does not support what the MAL (Modern American Left) wants?

And, there are definitely groups on the "right" (reason for quotations discussed below) who want to legislate their idea of morality. There are groups on the "right" who do want some sort of anarchy, because they may view it as necessary to rebuild or for some other reason (ethnic/race-based).

I think the problem is that most of the USA has bastardized the meanings of conservative and liberal ("right" and "left") so much that it is easy not to have any sort of knowledge of where agreement can be had.

For example, a lot of folks consider me a conservative, a "rightie". They are correct in part, and they are very wrong in part. I am a conservative when it comes to the Constitution. I am a conservative when it comes to fiscal matters. I am about as liberal as they come when it comes to government - as little as is possible. And, I am about as liberal as they come when it comes to social matters, in the realm of public policy. (Personally, I spent my early life being a preppie, and now I appreciate social niceties.)

Because a lot of what we discuss here has to do with spending and more government, I imagine that many who are so bent as partisans would never know that they have a lot in common (or don't have as much in common) with me. as they think.

The only reason I speak of myself is to give an example of where these two terms, conservative and liberal/"right" and "left", don't mean much of anything when describing so many persons politically.

There was a time when it looked like the base (or what so many thought was the base) of the right was the religious right. I don't like them; I think they are authoritarians disguised with perfume and nice toothy smiles.

So, what does someone mean when they say MAC? I'm not so sure that includes me completely. I'm pretty sure it includes some fringe groups, just as the OWS is included as a fringe group of the "left", as Klaven sort of acknowledges with his saying that he has knowledge of some presentable "lefties" - an anecdote.

But, I DO agree that more entitlements to the absurd level, as OWS wants, promotes individuals who have very little to contribute to society. IMO and for that reason, we don't need more socialism in the USA. We have too much as it is, thus the OWS.

(Oh, and I just wanted to argue with you because I enjoy it. So, I looked for a reason to do so. )

 

[Foxfyre]

To rebut it, the violence, among other things, would have to be condoned, as you said. I suspect many do condone that violence, especially based on many posters' rhetoric who fervently support OWS (ie. our recent influx of propagandists); it's a default position in supporting OWS, at this point.

However, Klaven could just have easily written an essay reversing left and right and substituting some whacked-out militia or religious group.

So, in my book, his essay is a wash.

However, what I will take home from it is that more and more entitlements lead us to becoming not much of anything, individually. That's nothing new to me. It's history repeating.

Gee I don't get to cross swords with you hardly ever, so this is a real treat.

But on this one I simply must.

I disagree that Klavan could have reversed his thesis by saying conservatism makes people awful by substituting some whacked-out-militia or religious group. Whacked out militia or religious groups are not modern American conservatives (MACs) The militia groups are mostly anarchists and no MAC would ever condone anarchy. The militant religious groups who demand the federal government impose the laws that THEY want imposed re their religious beliefs are also anathema to MACs. They are not modern American conservatives. They are pro big government control and big government authoritarianism that actually makes them more left than right in that point of view. They also are prone to trample on the unaiienable rights of others to have their way which MACs universally condemn.

I have seen no evidence that modern American conservatism promotes anything other than protection of unalienable rights, individual liberty, patriotism, and a belief that personal responsibility and accountability is the salvation of the America we have known and loved. I honestly cannot think of any illustration of any MAC group that would be open for the kind of criticism that the destructive Occupy groups deserve.

A few of our leftist friends here say they condemn the actions of the destructive Occupy groups, but they at the same time point out how 'mainstream' they are, how normal and justified in anger they are, etc. etc. etc.

So we are back to the conundrum. Either leftism is the catalyst of such antisocial behavior among large groups of people or it isn't. Limited by the shortness of the essay, Klavan makes a really good case that it is.

But, couldn't some on the left say the same thing you just said: The OWS does not support what the MAL (Modern American Left) wants?

And, there are definitely groups on the "right" (reason for quotations discussed below) who want to legislate their idea of morality. There are groups on the "right" who do want some sort of anarchy, because they may view it as necessary to rebuild or for some other reason (ethnic/race-based).

I think the problem is that most of the USA has bastardized the meanings of conservative and liberal ("right" and "left") so much that it is easy not to have any sort of knowledge of where agreement can be had.

For example, a lot of folks consider me a conservative, a "rightie". They are correct in part, and they are very wrong in part. I am a conservative when it comes to the Constitution. I am a conservative when it comes to fiscal matters. I am about as liberal as they come when it comes to government - as little as is possible. And, I am about as liberal as they come when it comes to social matters, in the realm of public policy. (Personally, I spent my early life being a preppie, and now I appreciate social niceties.)

Because a lot of what we discuss here has to do with spending and more government, I imagine that many who are so bent as partisans would never know that they have a lot in common (or don't have as much in common) with me. as they think.

The only reason I speak of myself is to give an example of where these two terms, conservative and liberal/"right" and "left", don't mean much of anything when describing so many persons politically.

There was a time when it looked like the base (or what so many thought was the base) of the right was the religious right. I don't like them; I think they are authoritarians disguised with perfume and nice toothy smiles.

So, what does someone mean when they say MAC? I'm not so sure that includes me completely. I'm pretty sure it includes some fringe groups, just as the OWS is included as a fringe group of the "left", as Klaven sort of acknowledges with his saying that he has knowledge of some presentable "lefties" - an anecdote.

But, I DO agree that more entitlements to the absurd level, as OWS wants, promotes individuals who have very little to contribute to society. IMO and for that reason, we don't need more socialism in the USA. We have too much as it is, thus the OWS.

(Oh, and I just wanted to argue with you because I enjoy it. So, I looked for a reason to do so. )

LOL. Maybe one of these days we can find a subject in which we are in substantial disagreement and the mods would set up a formal debate for us. I can tell you I would approach such an exercise both with relish for the mental workout it would give me, but also with a bit of trepidation that I could easily get my ass handed to me.

Your money paragraph though is here:

For example, a lot of folks consider me a conservative, a "rightie". They are correct in part, and they are very wrong in part. I am a conservative when it comes to the Constitution. I am a conservative when it comes to fiscal matters. I am about as liberal as they come when it comes to government - as little as is possible. And, I am about as liberal as they come when it comes to social matters, in the realm of public policy. (Personally, I spent my early life being a preppie, and now I appreciate social niceties.)

And what you are describing here is a MAC (modern American conservative) i.e. Classical Liberal as I defined it I think earlier in this thread. That is, you have described yourself as a Classical Liberal that would put you on the right side of the ideological line UNLESS you want the federal government to mandate liberalism in social matters, in which you would deviate from that definition.

MACs do have commitment to certain traditional or nontraditional convictions re social matters--not defecating in public parks would be one of them--and also take all positions on abortion, death penalty, smoking in public places, traditional marriage, etc. etc. etc. But MACs don't want the Federal government to dictate any of these but rather leave it to the states and local communities to form whatever sort of societies they wish to have short of trampling on the unlienable rights of anybody.

 

[Si modo]

Gee I don't get to cross swords with you hardly ever, so this is a real treat.

But on this one I simply must.

I disagree that Klavan could have reversed his thesis by saying conservatism makes people awful by substituting some whacked-out-militia or religious group. Whacked out militia or religious groups are not modern American conservatives (MACs) The militia groups are mostly anarchists and no MAC would ever condone anarchy. The militant religious groups who demand the federal government impose the laws that THEY want imposed re their religious beliefs are also anathema to MACs. They are not modern American conservatives. They are pro big government control and big government authoritarianism that actually makes them more left than right in that point of view. They also are prone to trample on the unaiienable rights of others to have their way which MACs universally condemn.

I have seen no evidence that modern American conservatism promotes anything other than protection of unalienable rights, individual liberty, patriotism, and a belief that personal responsibility and accountability is the salvation of the America we have known and loved. I honestly cannot think of any illustration of any MAC group that would be open for the kind of criticism that the destructive Occupy groups deserve.

A few of our leftist friends here say they condemn the actions of the destructive Occupy groups, but they at the same time point out how 'mainstream' they are, how normal and justified in anger they are, etc. etc. etc.

So we are back to the conundrum. Either leftism is the catalyst of such antisocial behavior among large groups of people or it isn't. Limited by the shortness of the essay, Klavan makes a really good case that it is.

But, couldn't some on the left say the same thing you just said: The OWS does not support what the MAL (Modern American Left) wants?

And, there are definitely groups on the "right" (reason for quotations discussed below) who want to legislate their idea of morality. There are groups on the "right" who do want some sort of anarchy, because they may view it as necessary to rebuild or for some other reason (ethnic/race-based).

I think the problem is that most of the USA has bastardized the meanings of conservative and liberal ("right" and "left") so much that it is easy not to have any sort of knowledge of where agreement can be had.

For example, a lot of folks consider me a conservative, a "rightie". They are correct in part, and they are very wrong in part. I am a conservative when it comes to the Constitution. I am a conservative when it comes to fiscal matters. I am about as liberal as they come when it comes to government - as little as is possible. And, I am about as liberal as they come when it comes to social matters, in the realm of public policy. (Personally, I spent my early life being a preppie, and now I appreciate social niceties.)

Because a lot of what we discuss here has to do with spending and more government, I imagine that many who are so bent as partisans would never know that they have a lot in common (or don't have as much in common) with me. as they think.

The only reason I speak of myself is to give an example of where these two terms, conservative and liberal/"right" and "left", don't mean much of anything when describing so many persons politically.

There was a time when it looked like the base (or what so many thought was the base) of the right was the religious right. I don't like them; I think they are authoritarians disguised with perfume and nice toothy smiles.

So, what does someone mean when they say MAC? I'm not so sure that includes me completely. I'm pretty sure it includes some fringe groups, just as the OWS is included as a fringe group of the "left", as Klaven sort of acknowledges with his saying that he has knowledge of some presentable "lefties" - an anecdote.

But, I DO agree that more entitlements to the absurd level, as OWS wants, promotes individuals who have very little to contribute to society. IMO and for that reason, we don't need more socialism in the USA. We have too much as it is, thus the OWS.

(Oh, and I just wanted to argue with you because I enjoy it. So, I looked for a reason to do so. )

LOL. Maybe one of these days we can find a subject in which we are in substantial disagreement and the mods would set up a formal debate for us. I can tell you I would approach such an exercise both with relish for the mental workout it would give me, but also with a bit of trepidation that I could easily get my ass handed to me.

Your money paragraph though is here:

For example, a lot of folks consider me a conservative, a "rightie". They are correct in part, and they are very wrong in part. I am a conservative when it comes to the Constitution. I am a conservative when it comes to fiscal matters. I am about as liberal as they come when it comes to government - as little as is possible. And, I am about as liberal as they come when it comes to social matters, in the realm of public policy. (Personally, I spent my early life being a preppie, and now I appreciate social niceties.)

And what you are describing here is a MAC (modern American conservative) i.e. Classical Liberal as I defined it I think earlier in this thread. That is, you have described yourself as a Classical Liberal that would put you on the right side of the ideological line UNLESS you want the federal government to mandate liberalism in social matters, in which you would deviate from that definition.

MACs do have commitment to certain traditional or nontraditional convictions re social matters--not defecating in public parks would be one of them--and also take all positions on abortion, death penalty, smoking in public places, traditional marriage, etc. etc. etc. But MACs don't want the Federal government to dictate any of these but rather leave it to the states and local communities to form whatever sort of societies they wish to have short of trampling on the unlienable rights of anybody.

I am definitely a classical liberal (with a neocon views with respect to foreign policy).

IF classical liberals are what a MAC is, then I agree. Based on my personal micro-society, yes, most of those are classical liberals. But, if we took all in the USA who self-identify as conservatives, is that what we would find? Or, would we find more of the religious right? I don't know.

But, we get back to my point that substituting in some whacked-out religious group - certainly associated with the "right" - for the OWS, could we construct a similar essay as Klaven's? I think we could. Maybe that essay would have big hair and running mascara, for example, as the results of what 'rightism' does to people, but I believe it would be a factual essay as well.

So, that is why I believe his essay is a wash. I also believe that because the majority who we see are the left on USMB do support the OWS, so they have to condone their violence and pig-like behavior at this point. If I were ever to be sympathetic to whatever their gripe du jour is, I would at least acknowledge that their violence and virtual confiscation of public property is not the way to go.

However, I am not convinced by his essay that leftism leads to violence and pig-like behavior. My reasons for not being convinced is the substitution exercise I mention. I am more convinced by history, though.

 

[bripat9643]

I can see the rationale a little though. After all, I'm off the opinion that fundamentalist belief systems attract the mentally ill.

Thanks for explaining the stuff you post in this forum.

 

[oreo]

I voted 'left unchecked leftism will destroy American as we know it'. For the simple reason that I have seen what left wing policies have done to the UK. It is not a bad country, but its people have, for the most part, lost their ability to stand on their own two feet. They expect government to 'take care of' them. I constantly hear Brits wanting to 'ban' this or 'ban' that... anything they disagree with. Their concept of free speech is laughable. They are like sheep - nice people, but most definitely sheep.

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, but many older people say the country is not the one their generation fought and died to preserve. I find that sad.

All we need to do is look at what is going on in Europe--specifically Greece--for a real life lesson in socialism.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

 

[Rinata]

Each to their own. But however anybody sees it, nobody has yet put up any kind of coherant argument to dispute it.

I think because it is convoluted and not worth the time.

Translation: You and those glad handing you CAN'T dispute it; therefore, it is not worth your time.

If that makes you happy, then enjoy your delusion.

 

[logical4u]

FF excels in parallel conversations. Leading the RW cronies in a bash left fest and calling it "scholarship". What a load of manure.

There is no real analysis of any so-called "leftist" tenet. Frankly, I have no idea what human beings these mythical "leftists" are. Are you dragging Marx out of his grave?

I'm a liberal, I lean left in my political stances on a number of national issues and I have NEVER read Marx.

I doubt you would find a directive to pee and shit in public in Das Kapital, however, as the RW goons who won't even talk to liberal posters say.

This is NOTHING but a flame fest designed to puff up the fragile egos of the RW cronies and demean other citizens whose politics lean left.

Labelling has become the replacement for true discourse, while MS High and Mighty talks ONLY to those who believe in this bigoted nonsense.

No point in posting on this thread, which is clearly the intent of the OP. This is a RW rant, RW hate speech and liberals and leftists aren't invited. No counter arguments are welcome.

Typical.

We ask the "left-leaners": What evidence do you have that your system works? We get, in theory.... We ask them: Where has this system ever worked longer than other people's money? We get crickets.

You want to have a dialog? How about speaking in facts, not ideals. Ideally, I should be able to fly with mind power anywhere in the world. Factually, that will not be happening any time soon.

Sweden and Norway.

Sweden and Norway depend on the USA to defend them (we are there military budget, paid for by "USA tax dollars). Nice try.

 

[logical4u]

What an odd assortment of foes you list here! What on earth do Islamic extremists have to do with Liberals? or "homosexual activists"? Why are Communists included?

Sounds like a potpourri of things you either hate or don't fully understand or fear. My guess is it's a combination of all of the above. But the truth may lay closer to groups that you think sound diabolical and are just fun to lump together.

They use the same methods: they speak about what is "fair" (to them), while ignoring or oppressing the rights of others. They support each other against conservatives because their goals are the same: to take what the conservatives have (envy). Once the conservatives have been subjugated or eliminated, each thinks they will land on top.

yeah. gotta hate "fair'.

And I don't "envy" Conservatives. I pity them for they know only selfishness and not nobility.

I wonder how, for just one example, posting the Ten Commandments in a court house has nothing to do with speaking out about what's 'fair' while not ignoring the rights of others?

I wonder how, for just one example, how subjugating homosexuals as second class citizens does not oppress the rights of those homosexuals?

I wonder why, for just one example, eliminating environmental regulations benefits society.

Conservatism: always on the wrong side of society, history and the rights of all.

Please list the "noble" dems/leftists/libs/communists/socialists/islamic extremists/homosexual activists.

The 10 Commandments are the most "fair" laws ever written. They apply to ALL men, not to certain classes, colors, conditions. Please explain how the 10 Commandments are not fair.

How are homosexuals subjugated? Do they have brands, or tattoos that distiguish them from any other citizen?

Environmental regulations: do you even understand how clean water is delivered to your tap? Do you understand how your waste goes to another place besides a ditch outside your dwelling? When you have mastered the concept of electrical energy equals a CLEANER environment, we will talk more about this.

Historically, dems/leftists/libs/communists/socialists/islamic extremists/homosexual activists have made a stain on any society where they came to power for any length of time.
islamic extremists = countries in the Middle East (which one has an immigration problem because so many people are trying to get IN?)
homosexual activists: where has giving special privaledges to one group of people at the expense of others ever worked?
socialists: Musolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, current European crisis
communists: USSR, Cuba, currently Venuzuela, China, Vietnam
dems/leftists/libs: the continent of Africa: everyone wants things done their way and are willing to subjugate, or murder anyone that does not submit to their ideals.

The first country that was EVER conservative (modern definition) was and is the USA. It was followed by Canada, and Australia. Old colonies tried to copy our independence, but always left a loophole for a powerful person, and soon became countries that owned the inhabitants, not a country that represented the people.

But hey, by all means, list the dems/leftists/libs/communists/socialists/islamic extremists/homosexual activists values.

 

[logical4u]

Liberals support:
children experimenting with sex (taught by tax dollar funded schools)
children having abortions without parental consent
legalization of drugs
poor people having children to get more money from welfare
single mothers staying single
deadbeat dads for single mothers (baby daddy)
hate crimes that are selectively applied
drugging of boy children (for ADD, etc)
an elite ruling class (from IVY league schools)
taxing the wealthy dispropotionately
keeping almost half of the population under the thumb of gov't, by letting then NOT pay taxes
Silencing conservatives
Selectively eliminating the Bill of Rights (freedom to practice religion/right to bear arms)

So please, list those moral values you have.

gee. I wonder how these positions fit with the avowed Conservative position of smaller, less intrusive government?

Would Conservatives forcibly sterilize people so poor people won't or can't have children to get more money from welfare? Would Conservatives force single mothers to wed?

Why the distrust of Ivy League educated people? Something about knowledge that's an anathema to Conservatives? I know that smart folks aren't easily fooled into thinking that backwards is the best way to go.

And if the wealthy are taking capital disproportionately, shouldn't they be taxed accordingly?

Are Conservatives actively encouraging Liberal ideas to be heard? Perhaps the Conservatives are actually silencing Liberals.

And if teaching children the pitfalls of sex and their responsibility once they become sexually active is a bad thing, why teach abstinence? Ask the Palin household how effective Abstinence only sex "education' is.

What a long, long list of morals that was.

If girls/women know that there is no gov't safety net for single parents, they would be a LOT more careful about not having children without a system of support (for most that would be a husband)

Distrust Ivy League? We look at them as everyday people. We do not elevate them to all-knowing diety status, because they suckered someone else into paying for their education.

So outcomes and results should be "fair" but effort and input should be decided by those on the "receiving end"?

Please give example (s) of where a conservative "silenced" a liberal. Did you support Air America (before it went bankrupt for lack of listeners or support)? Do you know about NPR? Are you suggesting the people should be forced to listen to liberal ideas (because when most liberals start spouting their ideas, the conservatives I know ignore them, change the subject, or walk away (why, because if you start asking about facts, truth, or evidence, you get called names or blank stares).

Please list the schools that list the "pitfalls" of sex. If the pitfalls of sex were taught in schools, children would NEVER have sex.

Again, I really enjoyed that list of morals, maybe you will post them again, so others can see exactly what morals are important to dems/leftists/libs/communists/socialists/islamic extremists/homosexual activists.

 

[NoNukes]

Last Monday, Andrew Klaven offered a mini essay that is particularly pertinent at this time of history given the social upheavals witnessed across the country.

I fully expect the numbnuts, wingnuts, and dingbats to immediately condemn his thesis and probably some right wingnuts will immediately applaud it without thinking.

But if we could keep this reasonably civil, I think there are some people who will actually consider whether he is right. Or whether his thesis is flawed and why.

The emphasis is mine and I took some liberties with the paragraphing hoping to make the text more readable.

Leftism is bad for people. It makes them awful.

The unwashed, ill-mannered, anti-Semitic, entitled, and now violent mobs littering various parts of the nation under the banner “Occupy” believe their ideas will lead to a better society — but they actually are the society their ideas lead to. Their behavior when compared to the polite, law-abiding, non-racist demonstrations of so-called tea partiers tells you everything you need to know about the end results of statism on the one hand and constitutional liberty on the other.

This is not, of course, to say that every left-winger is a miscreant but rather that the natural, indeed inevitable, result of statism is to produce nations of miscreants. When the state is permitted to make the individual’s moral choices, the individual is forced to become either a slave or a criminal; when the state is permitted to redistribute wealth, it chains the citizen into a rigid, two-tiered hierarchy of power rather than freedom’s fluid, multi-layered rankings of merit and chance; when the people are taught to be dependent on entitlements, they are reduced to violence when, inevitably, the entitlement well runs dry; when belief in the state usurps every higher creed, the people become apathetic, hedonistic, and uncreative and their culture slouches into oblivion.

I need hardly expend the energy required to lift my finger and point to Europe where cities burn because the unemployable are unemployed or because the hard-working won’t fund the debts of the indolent; where violent and despicable Islamism eats away portions of municipalities like a cancer while the authorities do nothing; where nations that once produced history’s greatest achievements in science and the arts can now no longer produce even enough human beings to sustain themselves.
Klavan On The Culture » What Leftism Does to People

What in the world are you talking about? I live in Europe, and you are way off. Concentrate on the fall of America, and quit pointing fingers.

 

[logical4u]

The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club. ~Dave Barry

So who are more selfish? Those who think government should require all people to live by the liberal ideal of the day? Nevermind that freedom thing or what the unintended consequences might be. As long as the motives are in the right place, it is all good?

Or those who think the government should secure our rights and then leave us alone to enjoy and benefit from the blessings of liberty, self determination, opportunity, vision, and limitless boundaries? People who really don't care what the liberals do but who demand the right to live their own life and form their own society as they see fit? Who see charity as digging into their own pocket and giving of their own labor rather than demanding that the government confiscate the property of others and do it for them?

I expect the idiots and numbnuts to call conservatives names and say all manner of hateful things about us. That's all most seem to know how to do. It does hurt a bit when a friend calls me selfish though and accuses me of being on the wrong side of society, history and the rights of all.

I look around our busy little city here at the many thrift shops providing low costs food, clothing, and housegoods to disadvantaged people at pennies on the dollar--free when somebody needs something and can't pay at all. Every one of those shops was organized and is staffed mostly by conservatives.

I look at the homeless shelters and soup kitchens around town and the yeoman's work the Salvation Army does to give a hand up to the fallen and Love Inc. that every week on every week is rounding up furniture and household necessities and deivering to the family who has lost everything or never had much of anything. All done by mostly conservative staff and volunteers.

I can't think of a single agency targeted for ongoing help for the poor that actually helps people with no fanfare and no expectation of reward or good publicity that was founded by or is staffed by liberals.

I look at the leper colonies around the world, the on going ministries among some of the world's poorest and most desperate people, an amazing orphanage in Juarez, Mexico, the amazing relief work of groups like World Vision that can get to the people when governments can't.

Most conservatives believe in actually helping people. Most liberals seem to think concern and motive is sufficient and results are secondary. Liberals support government assistance and don't seem to care that most of it goes to viscious, unscrupulous warlords and other corrupt governments and little, if any, gets to those who desperately need it. At least their hearts are in the right place.

Conservatives think it more important to get results.

Liberals too often seem to think throwing more money at a problem or a government program with a noble sounding title is all that is required in order to be noble.Conservatives know better.

I prefer conservatism.

Good Lord, are you full of it!!! What did you do, visit all of those places and take a survey?? This entire post is just a hate speech disguised as something else. Listen to your friends. I think they know what they're talking about.

Lastly, based on what I've observed about conservatives, they are not as benevolent as you seem to think.

Would you care to list where conservatives are deficating on police cars, vandalizing businesses and property, squatting on other people's property, demanding free supplies from businesses (or trashing a business when one says I have given you all that is possible without hurting the business), throwing rocks/stones at police that are trying to enforce the law, intimidating customers trying to get to businesses or employees trying to go to work, etc?

 

[logical4u]

Each to their own. But however anybody sees it, nobody has yet put up any kind of coherant argument to dispute it.

I think because it is convoluted and not worth the time.

We hear this a lot from dems/leftists/libs/communists/socialists/islamic extremists/homosexual activists. After hearing it for 30+ years, I am convinced it is because the dems/leftists/libs/communists/socialists/islamic extremists/homosexual activists don't have any facts to back up their ideals. It is "do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

Conservatives, on the other hand: "hey, this is what I did to make it, and if I can do it, and make it, anyone can", especially an elite intellectual, like yourself!

 

[Foxfyre]

I voted 'left unchecked leftism will destroy American as we know it'. For the simple reason that I have seen what left wing policies have done to the UK. It is not a bad country, but its people have, for the most part, lost their ability to stand on their own two feet. They expect government to 'take care of' them. I constantly hear Brits wanting to 'ban' this or 'ban' that... anything they disagree with. Their concept of free speech is laughable. They are like sheep - nice people, but most definitely sheep.

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, but many older people say the country is not the one their generation fought and died to preserve. I find that sad.

All we need to do is look at what is going on in Europe--specifically Greece--for a real life lesson in socialism.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Seriously people, all the mud slinging and finger pointing and contempt thrown at each other is rather distressing. It is what is wrong with a society entrenched in class warfare and that uses hate and insults to subjugate those it disagrees with instead of dialogue and thoughtful consideration. And yes, both sides can be and sometimes are guilty of that.

But the fact is ALL administrations, even the Obama administration though you have to look for it harder there, have done some good things and some things open for honest criticism. President Eisenhower supported and signed the interstate highway system into law but sent the first 'advisors' into Vietnam. President Kennedy gave us the Peace Corps. and handled the Cuban missile crisis superbly but sent the first troops to Vietnam. President Johnson gave us the Great Society that has had much to condemn it and also much to commend it. President Nixon is remembered for the scandals. But he signed into law the EPA that WAS a good thing at that time, the Clean Water Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Gerald Ford is remembered for pardoning Nixon--it cost him re-election--but he was the President who got us out of Vietnam.

And so forth. . . . .

We love to find the one major flaw or the one redeeming factor in a Presidential admnistration and hold that up as the only thing important. It never is the only thing important.

So that brings us back to the broader picture. Does modern American conservatism--let the government do its constitutionally assigned duties and the people will take it from there--produce the better results?

Or does modern American leftism--the government should deal with and be involved in most or all societal problems--produce the better results?

And yes expand that to the developed world in general? What prompts the wholesale riots and demonstrations we see on our television sets every evening? Can somebody be honest about that?

I would challenge the group to look at that with an open mind, go beyond noble sounding program titles, and focus on the behavior of people that would identify with each group.

Please leave the extremists out of it. So far nobody here has pointed to the Occupy groups as 'extremist'--in fact the left, including the media, has portrayed them as grass roots and mainstream as the Tea Party groups.

 

[Ropey]

I think because it is convoluted and not worth the time.

How is it convoluted?

It's convoluted because they can't figure out a way to dispute it. They can accuse me, accuse Klavan, or accuse others of us of all manner of uncomplimentary adjectives, but they can't dispute the thesis because it is obviously correct.

The 'awful' part is the only subjective consideration in the thesis, but in order to discredit that, they have to condone what the destructive Occupy groups are doing. And even most of our most radical leftists friends here are not quite up to doing that.

Or understand it Foxfyre. It takes understanding to dispute, and it takes logical intellect to dispute your posts. I've had these discussions with you when we are on different viewpoints. Sometimes I'm successful, sometimes not but it always takes understanding and logic to debate or discuss with you.

I don't here because I agree with you and you say it better than I do.

The ones who can debate you and disagree are not in here.

 

[Foxfyre]

How is it convoluted?

It's convoluted because they can't figure out a way to dispute it. They can accuse me, accuse Klavan, or accuse others of us of all manner of uncomplimentary adjectives, but they can't dispute the thesis because it is obviously correct.

The 'awful' part is the only subjective consideration in the thesis, but in order to discredit that, they have to condone what the destructive Occupy groups are doing. And even most of our most radical leftists friends here are not quite up to doing that.

Or understand it Foxfyre. It takes understanding to dispute, and it takes logical intellect to dispute your posts. I've had these discussions with you when we are on different viewpoints. Sometimes I'm successful, sometimes not but it always takes understanding and logic to debate or discuss with you.

I don't here because I agree with you and you say it better than I do.

The ones who can debate you and disagree are not in here.

Aw thanks, Ropey. I sure don't have expertise in all areas and don't pretend to have all the answers on how to deal with specific problems--I've had my ass handed to me more than once in a serious debate--always by another conservative though?

If I ever leave USMB, it will be for an ACTIVE forum in which people really want to debate issues and just throwing random stones is not allowed. At least I THINK that is what I want. I haven't found such a place yet.

 

[bobcollum]

The left is the yin to the right's yang, and anything left unchecked will screw up given enough time...and given that humans are in control of it. Unchecked Rightism would destroy this country too.

 

[bripat9643]

The left is the yin to the right's yang, and anything left unchecked will screw up given enough time...and given that humans are in control of it. Unchecked Rightism would destroy this country too.

How, by letting people keep too much of their paychecks?

 

[skookerasbil]

Hmmm........I figured more than 17% k00ks on this forum!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

The left is the yin to the right's yang, and anything left unchecked will screw up given enough time...and given that humans are in control of it. Unchecked Rightism would destroy this country too.

nah..........would only destroy it for the nutters.