February 2, 2012
Understanding Liberals
TOWNHALL.com
1) Liberalism creates a feedback loop. It is usually impossible for a non-liberal to change a liberal's mind about political issues because liberalism works like so: only liberals are credible sources of information. How do you know someone's liberal? He espouses liberal doctrine. So, no matter how plausible what you say may be, it will be ignored if you're not a liberal and if you are a liberal, of course, you probably agree with liberal views. This sort of close-mindedness makes liberals nearly impervious to any information that might undermine their beliefs.
2) Liberals sources of information are ever present. Conservatives are regularly exposed to the liberal viewpoint whether they want to be or not. That's not necessarily so for liberals. Imagine the average day for liberals. They get up and read their local newspaper. It has a liberal viewpoint. They take their kids to school, where the teachers are liberal. Then they go to work, listen to NPR which has a liberal viewpoint on the way home, and then turn on the nightly news which also skews leftward. From there, they turn on TV and watch shows created by liberals that lean to the left, if they have any political viewpoint at all. Unless liberals actively seek out conservative viewpoints, which is unlikely, the only conservative arguments they're probably going to hear are going to be through the heavily distorted, poorly translated, deeply skeptical lens of other liberals.
3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it's designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn't work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they're "protecting the environment" even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it's not what a program does in the real world; it's about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.
4) Liberals are big believers in moral relativism. This spins them round and round because if the only thing that's wrong is saying that there's an absolute moral code, then you lose your ability to tell cause from effect, good from bad, and right from wrong. Taking being non-judgmental to the level that liberals do leaves them paralyzed, pondering "why they hate us" because they feel incapable of saying, “That's wrong," and doing something about it. If you're against firm standards and condemning immoral behavior, then your moral compass won’t work and you’ll also be for immorality, as well as societal and cultural decay by default.
5) Liberals tend to view people as parts of groups, not individuals. One of the prejudices of liberalism is that they see everyone as part of a group, not as an individual. This can lead to rather bizarre disparities when say, a man from a group that they consider to be powerless, impoverished victims becomes the leader of the free world -- and he's challenged by a group of lower middle class white people who've banded together because individually they're powerless. If you listen to the liberal rhetoric, you might think Barack Obama was a black Republican being surrounded by a KKK lynching party 100 years ago -- as opposed to the single most powerful man in America abusing the authority of his office to attack ordinary Tea Partiers who have the audacity to speak the truth to power for the good of their country.
6) Liberals take a dim view of personal responsibility. Who's at fault if a criminal commits a crime? The criminal or society? If someone creates a business and becomes a millionaire, is that the result of hard work and talent or luck? If you're dirt poor, starving, and haven't worked in 5 years, is that a personal failing or a failure of the state? Conservatives would tend to say the former in each case, while liberals would tend to say the latter. But when you disconnect what an individual does from the results that happen in his life, it's very difficult to understand cause and effect in people's lives.
7) Liberals give themselves far too much credit just for being liberal. To many liberals, all one needs to do to be wise, intelligent, compassionate, open minded, and sensitive is to BE LIBERAL. In other words, many of the good things about a person spring not from his actions, but from the ideology he holds. This has an obvious appeal. You can be a diehard misogynist, but plausibly call yourself a feminist, hate blacks, but accuse others of racism, have a subpar IQ and be an intellectual, give nothing to charity and be compassionate, etc., etc., and all you have to do is call yourself a liberal. It's a shortcut to virtue much like the corrupt old idea of religious indulgences. Why live a life of virtue when you could live a sinful life and buy your way into heaven? If you're a liberal, why actually live a life of virtue when you can merely call yourself a liberal and get credit for being virtuous, even when you've done nothing to earn it?
7 Reasons Why Liberals Are Incapable of Understanding The World
To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. — Charles KrauthammerEven liberals who've accomplished a lot in their lives and have high IQs often say things on a regular basis that are stunningly, profoundly stupid and at odds with the way the world works. Modern liberalism has become so bereft of common sense and instinctually suicidal that America can only survive over the long haul by thwarting the liberal agenda. In fact, liberalism has become such a toxic and poisonous philosophy that most liberals wouldn't behave differently if their goal were to deliberately destroy the country. So, how does liberalism cause well-meaning, intelligent liberals to get this way? Well, it starts with...
1) Liberalism creates a feedback loop. It is usually impossible for a non-liberal to change a liberal's mind about political issues because liberalism works like so: only liberals are credible sources of information. How do you know someone's liberal? He espouses liberal doctrine. So, no matter how plausible what you say may be, it will be ignored if you're not a liberal and if you are a liberal, of course, you probably agree with liberal views. This sort of close-mindedness makes liberals nearly impervious to any information that might undermine their beliefs.
2) Liberals sources of information are ever present. Conservatives are regularly exposed to the liberal viewpoint whether they want to be or not. That's not necessarily so for liberals. Imagine the average day for liberals. They get up and read their local newspaper. It has a liberal viewpoint. They take their kids to school, where the teachers are liberal. Then they go to work, listen to NPR which has a liberal viewpoint on the way home, and then turn on the nightly news which also skews leftward. From there, they turn on TV and watch shows created by liberals that lean to the left, if they have any political viewpoint at all. Unless liberals actively seek out conservative viewpoints, which is unlikely, the only conservative arguments they're probably going to hear are going to be through the heavily distorted, poorly translated, deeply skeptical lens of other liberals.
3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it's designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn't work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they're "protecting the environment" even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it's not what a program does in the real world; it's about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.
4) Liberals are big believers in moral relativism. This spins them round and round because if the only thing that's wrong is saying that there's an absolute moral code, then you lose your ability to tell cause from effect, good from bad, and right from wrong. Taking being non-judgmental to the level that liberals do leaves them paralyzed, pondering "why they hate us" because they feel incapable of saying, “That's wrong," and doing something about it. If you're against firm standards and condemning immoral behavior, then your moral compass won’t work and you’ll also be for immorality, as well as societal and cultural decay by default.
5) Liberals tend to view people as parts of groups, not individuals. One of the prejudices of liberalism is that they see everyone as part of a group, not as an individual. This can lead to rather bizarre disparities when say, a man from a group that they consider to be powerless, impoverished victims becomes the leader of the free world -- and he's challenged by a group of lower middle class white people who've banded together because individually they're powerless. If you listen to the liberal rhetoric, you might think Barack Obama was a black Republican being surrounded by a KKK lynching party 100 years ago -- as opposed to the single most powerful man in America abusing the authority of his office to attack ordinary Tea Partiers who have the audacity to speak the truth to power for the good of their country.
6) Liberals take a dim view of personal responsibility. Who's at fault if a criminal commits a crime? The criminal or society? If someone creates a business and becomes a millionaire, is that the result of hard work and talent or luck? If you're dirt poor, starving, and haven't worked in 5 years, is that a personal failing or a failure of the state? Conservatives would tend to say the former in each case, while liberals would tend to say the latter. But when you disconnect what an individual does from the results that happen in his life, it's very difficult to understand cause and effect in people's lives.
7) Liberals give themselves far too much credit just for being liberal. To many liberals, all one needs to do to be wise, intelligent, compassionate, open minded, and sensitive is to BE LIBERAL. In other words, many of the good things about a person spring not from his actions, but from the ideology he holds. This has an obvious appeal. You can be a diehard misogynist, but plausibly call yourself a feminist, hate blacks, but accuse others of racism, have a subpar IQ and be an intellectual, give nothing to charity and be compassionate, etc., etc., and all you have to do is call yourself a liberal. It's a shortcut to virtue much like the corrupt old idea of religious indulgences. Why live a life of virtue when you could live a sinful life and buy your way into heaven? If you're a liberal, why actually live a life of virtue when you can merely call yourself a liberal and get credit for being virtuous, even when you've done nothing to earn it?
January 29, 2012
Great piece from the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/9045657/How-I-woke-up-to-the-untruths-of-Barack-Obama.html
Click the title.
Click the title.
"They are not consume with personal ambition"
George Will reminds us Obama's statement about the Military:
"They are not consume with personal ambition"
It's funny. Consumed by personal ambition describes Obama perfectly.
And the personal ambition of title and diploma check list sans any real experience in anything.
Somehow, Columbia, check. Harvard Law, check (not that anyone can remember him)
Junior Temp Law Professor, check, Leftist ACORN/Community Agitator, check, Director of the Annenberg Challenge, "waste 150 million dollars on education to no results at all", check, Voting Present State Senator, check, 2 year Senator with the most liberal record (beyond Kennedy!),
Unlike any of the competitors or even the last 5 Presidents, Obama has no experience producing anything, serving anything, other than his ambition.
This is a man who has accomplished vying for the next best job, while contributing nothing and effecting NOTHING.
That anyone actually voted for this fraud is a very sad comment on America.
That Lefties STILL do not get any of this or understand it, is even sadder.
Even the results of 3 years THREE YEARS! Not talking a few months or even 1 or 2 years, but THREE YEARS, and folks are still Bush this Bush that...
How intellectually vapid and moronic!
"They are not consume with personal ambition"
It's funny. Consumed by personal ambition describes Obama perfectly.
And the personal ambition of title and diploma check list sans any real experience in anything.
Somehow, Columbia, check. Harvard Law, check (not that anyone can remember him)
Junior Temp Law Professor, check, Leftist ACORN/Community Agitator, check, Director of the Annenberg Challenge, "waste 150 million dollars on education to no results at all", check, Voting Present State Senator, check, 2 year Senator with the most liberal record (beyond Kennedy!),
Unlike any of the competitors or even the last 5 Presidents, Obama has no experience producing anything, serving anything, other than his ambition.
This is a man who has accomplished vying for the next best job, while contributing nothing and effecting NOTHING.
That anyone actually voted for this fraud is a very sad comment on America.
That Lefties STILL do not get any of this or understand it, is even sadder.
Even the results of 3 years THREE YEARS! Not talking a few months or even 1 or 2 years, but THREE YEARS, and folks are still Bush this Bush that...
How intellectually vapid and moronic!
GOP infighting
How quickly folks forget Politics.
The primary will end. Then it is 30 Bills in the House that put us on the road to recovery and have NO hearing in the Democrat Senate AND Obama's record of expanding gubbmint and dependence and debt.
We have incompetent Democrats who can't even pass a budget or even debate House bills (obstruction or at least incompetence) AND we have the results of 3 years of Obama policies.
We should be adding thousands of new jobs every day, like 3 years into Reagan, who had the worst situation.
Obama versus ... the alternative.
With a 50 percent disapproval, i wouldn't be counting on Independents to vote Obama.
The primary will end. Then it is 30 Bills in the House that put us on the road to recovery and have NO hearing in the Democrat Senate AND Obama's record of expanding gubbmint and dependence and debt.
We have incompetent Democrats who can't even pass a budget or even debate House bills (obstruction or at least incompetence) AND we have the results of 3 years of Obama policies.
We should be adding thousands of new jobs every day, like 3 years into Reagan, who had the worst situation.
Obama versus ... the alternative.
With a 50 percent disapproval, i wouldn't be counting on Independents to vote Obama.
January 8, 2012
Pat Buchanan and MSNBC
Mr. Griffin said, "The ideas he put forth aren’t really appropriate for national dialogue, much less the dialogue on MSNBC." The network has set out to brand itself as a network designed to appeal to progressive and liberal viewers.
----------------
"The ideas he put forth aren’t really appropriate for national dialogue, much less the dialogue on MSNBC"
Hmmmm.
The President of MSNBC doesn't think Buchanan's ideas are appropriate for discussion.
This is the president of a cable news network?
Pat's ideas, in his eyes, should be censored?!
Not even discussed?
This does not seem "tolerant" or Liberal.
----------------
"The ideas he put forth aren’t really appropriate for national dialogue, much less the dialogue on MSNBC"
Hmmmm.
The President of MSNBC doesn't think Buchanan's ideas are appropriate for discussion.
This is the president of a cable news network?
Pat's ideas, in his eyes, should be censored?!
Not even discussed?
This does not seem "tolerant" or Liberal.
January 7, 2012
Serenity
This is a terrific movie, for those who haven't seen it.
It is better than you can possibly imagine from Sci-Fi.
Check this gem out. Great story, script, cast, acting...
January 6, 2012
The Rap.
This is an actual news broadcast.
Andrea Mitchell claims "the Rap on Iowa, it doesn't represent the rest of the country, too white, too evangelical, too rural..."
The most obvious question is what are her sources? The rap on Iowa comes from- where? Who?
Also, what is too white? Does one need a little blackness to be legit? How about some Asian? Is the majority in America just too white? What is wrong with being white beyond the ability to get burnt red as a lobster at the Beach?!
It's too rural. That one is easy. It means Iowa grows food for the warren denizens of America's liberal elite cities and doesn't represent THEM, although it feeds them. I would watch that kind of talk unless Andrea wants to plant a garden in Central Park.
We all know what too evangelical means. It means too religious. One's religious Moral Framework shouldn't intrude on their viewpoint too much.
It's never been a problem for Leftists. Belief is passe.
I wonder though, who decides how much is "too" again.
Maybe Andrea's friends, her coffee klatch elbow rubbing Democrat Tea Drinkers (not Partiers, i emphasize. Oh no, not the Tea Party!!!!!)
There seems to be an oddly editorial slant to this news item.
It isn't even disguised. It is so obvious blatant i don't even feel i am in the audience for this important NBC news update.
Andrea Mitchell claims "the Rap on Iowa, it doesn't represent the rest of the country, too white, too evangelical, too rural..."
The most obvious question is what are her sources? The rap on Iowa comes from- where? Who?
Also, what is too white? Does one need a little blackness to be legit? How about some Asian? Is the majority in America just too white? What is wrong with being white beyond the ability to get burnt red as a lobster at the Beach?!
It's too rural. That one is easy. It means Iowa grows food for the warren denizens of America's liberal elite cities and doesn't represent THEM, although it feeds them. I would watch that kind of talk unless Andrea wants to plant a garden in Central Park.
We all know what too evangelical means. It means too religious. One's religious Moral Framework shouldn't intrude on their viewpoint too much.
It's never been a problem for Leftists. Belief is passe.
I wonder though, who decides how much is "too" again.
Maybe Andrea's friends, her coffee klatch elbow rubbing Democrat Tea Drinkers (not Partiers, i emphasize. Oh no, not the Tea Party!!!!!)
There seems to be an oddly editorial slant to this news item.
It isn't even disguised. It is so obvious blatant i don't even feel i am in the audience for this important NBC news update.
October 6, 2011
October 5, 2011
And the Winner is!!...
(CNSNews.com) - The Obama administration passed another fiscal milestone this week, according to new data released by the Treasury Department. As of the close of business on Oct. 3, the total national debt was $14,837,099,271,196.71—up about $44.8 billion from Sept. 30.
That means that in the less-than-three-years Obama has been in office, the federal debt has increased by $4.212 trillion--more than the total national debt of about $4.1672 trillion accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined.
This $4.212-trillion increase in the national debt means that during Obama’s term the federal government has already borrowed about an additional $35,835 for every American household--or $44,980 for every full-time private-sector worker. (According to the Census Bureau there were about 117,538,000 households in the country in 2010, and, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were about 93,641,000 full-time private-sector workers.)
When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the Treasury Department, the total national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08.
At the end of January 1993, the month that President George H. W. Bush left office, the total national debt was $4.1672 trillion, according to the Treasury. Thus, the total national debt accumulated by the first 41 presidents combined was about $44.8 billion less than the approximately $4.212 trillion in new debt added during Obama’s term.
As of Monday, Obama had been in office 986 days—or about 32 and a half months. During that time, the debt increased at an average pace of $4.27 billion per day. Were that rate to continue until Obama’s term ends on Jan. 20, 2013, the debt would then stand at about $16.86534 trillion—an increase of more than $6.2 trillion for Obama’s four years.
That would equal nearly $53,000 for each American household or more than $66,00 for each full-time private-sector worker.
That total national debt did not exceed $6.2 trillion until 2002, when George W. Bush was president.
That means that in the less-than-three-years Obama has been in office, the federal debt has increased by $4.212 trillion--more than the total national debt of about $4.1672 trillion accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined.
This $4.212-trillion increase in the national debt means that during Obama’s term the federal government has already borrowed about an additional $35,835 for every American household--or $44,980 for every full-time private-sector worker. (According to the Census Bureau there were about 117,538,000 households in the country in 2010, and, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were about 93,641,000 full-time private-sector workers.)
When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the Treasury Department, the total national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08.
At the end of January 1993, the month that President George H. W. Bush left office, the total national debt was $4.1672 trillion, according to the Treasury. Thus, the total national debt accumulated by the first 41 presidents combined was about $44.8 billion less than the approximately $4.212 trillion in new debt added during Obama’s term.
As of Monday, Obama had been in office 986 days—or about 32 and a half months. During that time, the debt increased at an average pace of $4.27 billion per day. Were that rate to continue until Obama’s term ends on Jan. 20, 2013, the debt would then stand at about $16.86534 trillion—an increase of more than $6.2 trillion for Obama’s four years.
That would equal nearly $53,000 for each American household or more than $66,00 for each full-time private-sector worker.
That total national debt did not exceed $6.2 trillion until 2002, when George W. Bush was president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)