The Unbearable Smugness of Liberals: A Guide for the Perplexed
Dear Belladonna Rogers:
I live in deep blue America and am a conservative. When I see old friends after a long absence, or meet new people, they assume I’m a liberal Democrat, in part because they are, and also because I live in a blue city in a blue state. I don’t like to argue in social settings, so normally I don’t reveal my political views. I can deal with differences of opinion, but what I find increasingly unpleasant is how smug and nasty liberal Democrats are when referring to conservatives, Republicans, or even independents. I’d like to remain close to old friends and form new friendships, too. How do you suggest I deal with the demeaning attitudes and intense anger that so many liberals express toward conservatives these days?
– Adrift in San Francisco
Dear Adrift,
(1) It is unpleasant to be treated as a moron, or criminally insane, a traitor to all that’s good and true, and, of course, a pariah, just because of your politics. It’s even more than unpleasant to incur wrath because you don’t want to dive head first into the blue seas of the liberal Democrats around you. In regions like yours it’s easy to be blindsided — stunned, really — by the unanimity of idolatry toward the current president. It’s galling to be presented with this uncongenial Venti, topped off as it invariably is by the latte of condescension. Disdainful liberals are unable to hide their contempt for those who differ with them. You begin what seems like an enjoyable conversation, but as soon you declare your political perspective, you go from being an attractive object of interest to the objectionable equivalent of a social leper.
(2) As soon as you realize that you’ve been presumed to be a liberal, nip it in the bud. Say that you’re a conservative. And say it as calmly as you can, not as if it’s a challenge to a duel. You may have to practice while you’re doing the dishes, but get to a point where you can say it with the same nonchalance as if you’re saying, “I’m from Nebraska.” No big deal. If you don’t reveal your politics as soon as you realize that the other person presumes you’re a liberal, you’ll become increasingly restless in the political closet as you mutely endure the slings and arrows of outrageous insults heaped on you and your fellow conservatives. You’ll also find yourself annoyed, not least at yourself, as you suffer through the predictable barrage of liberal arrogance. However conflict-averse you may be, not revealing your true colors is like trying to pass as something you’re not. Silence implies assent, and your silence won’t serve you well.
If you don’t disclose where you stand early on, you’ll become ever more irritated by how your liberal friends — having assumed you were one of them — refer to conservatives, and by the time you do tell them the truth, you’ll be far more exasperated than if you’d spoken up immediately. By the same token, your liberal friends will be equally irritated at you. They’ll feel that you deceived them which, by your silence, is exactly what you did.
(3) Your tone matters. Don’t be defensive, condescending, or aggressive with others, even when, or especially when, they address you in these ways. Be clear and friendly — and give them a chance to continue the conversation or let it drop.
(4) Your implied fear that expressing your political perspective may drive a wedge between you and your new and old friends is justified. It will put some distance between you and them, but in this case good fences make good neighbors by clearly demarcating the potentially toxic territory between you and them.
Think of it this way: if relationships are structures, revealing your political views will ensure that yours are built on firm ground and not on the quicksand of implicit deceit.
Even without a heated argument, a calm discussion is difficult to have with many liberals because they limit themselves to so few sources of information. An interesting exchange is foreclosed by their willful ignorance. It can be like talking with a cult member whose involvement forbids contact with anything that isn’t cult-approved.
When your interlocutor reads the New York Times and The New Yorker, listens to National Public Radio, and watches The Rachel Maddow Show — all uncritically and in the mistaken belief that these are objective sources of accurate information, what you’re dealing with is a person with an extremely restricted understanding of the country and the world. These parochial news sources reinforce one another. And even worse, the liberal will usually refuse to expose him-or-herself to a wider variety of sources. I, myself, had the experience of emailing a liberal acquaintance a link to an insightful op-ed piece that appeared in a newspaper that is, apparently, on the liberal “do not read” list. In reply, he wrote, “The Wall Street Journal? Please take me off your distribution list, Belladonna.” Wouldn’t even read it. He saw the source, knew it wasn’t approved, and that was that.
Easy, just consider where it comes from.
It sounds like liberalism is a variant of narcissism…
In fact, whilst the post is funny and makes too much sense, the best tip here is to make your excuses and leave… as the Irish man would say: ‘I would not start from here’.
Another alternative, if you have no interest in cultivating a friendship with the liberal, is to test how far their views will take them. Pretend you are a radical Communist and propose re-education camps for those conservatives who can be cowed and firing squads for the resisters. Point out that Castro followed this model and he is our hero. If you succeed in getting the liberal to agree to horrific measures against his countrymen, then you can either walk away forewarned or turn the tables, reveal your true positions, and ask them to think about what they just agreed with.
Why even bother baiting them? We know full well that given their options…they would ban books by Coulter, Palin, Breitbart, O”Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh or any other conservative.
Yes they would dismantle free speech. They’re still trying with this “fairness” act that would limit the 1st amendment. Then the 2nd amendment to leave you helpless to defend yourself when they come after you.
Don’t believe it…take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OCcYSRACwx0
My experience with liberals / “progressives” is just that. They would silence all opposition in a heartbeat and justify it by calling all conservatives a threat, Neanderthals or racists.
The worst liberals…the ones with the most to loose ( and have lost ) are the liberal Jews that continue to vote against their own interests.
Unbelievable that those who were once packed onto trains and imprisoned in camps would continue to vote for our enslavement.
This comment refers to the wonderment that “liberal Jews” do not become conservatives, which is held to be in their interest. First of all, until relatively recently, antisemitism was blatant in some areas of the Right. Second, liberal Jews have ancestral ties to the labor movement. I wrote about assimilation and ties to grandparents here: http://clarespark.com/2010/04/03/liberals-and-jewish-racism/.
As for this and other comments, liberals must be defeated using electoral means. There is no basis for communication between them and conservatives, for two political-economic systems confront each other and are simply irreconcilable, unless, as the author mentions, the liberal is really an Independent: socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
“antisemitism was blatant in some areas of the Right.”
Whereas today, it thrives in almost all quarters of the American and European left.
Those “ancestral ties” to “labor” (and I think your realty mean here “historical ties”) are more a function of their forebears being on arrival here recently removed from Middle European political life rather than a function of America political parties at the time. The Democrat Party has historically been much more anti-Semitics (and racist too) than the Democrats. They were the party of the nativists and the slavers. The Democrats merely control the local political machines where the Jews happened to have landed. Being the talented people that they were, they quickly moved beyond “labor” for their incomes.
You really slander the right here. The America”Right” is an reaction to the New Deal. It can hardly be said to be a distinct political economic “movement” prior to that.One primary founding political figure was Barry Goldwater, who was ethically a Jew.
There is in fact very little about the Right that is anti-semitic, while, on the other hand, the Left have been vociferously ant-semitic. One need look no further than the show trials of Stalin and later scapegoating of Jews in the USSSR to see this.
No, the adherence of left wing Jews to tne left is rooted in the pltcal economoy of 19th century Middle Europe and the substitution by these Jews of a false religion for a real one.
It has little to do with your alleged anti-sematicism on the Right.
I gotta say it, useless as it may be.
Liberal means open minded, just, generous.
When I was a long haired college kid in the 70′s I just do not recall the dream being of universal domination by the man.
On a side note. I find I only comment on well written essays. And if I comment its always in some manner a disagreement. And since I am not a good writer probably in a confusing way. Which means if the writer even reads the comments in effect I am discouraging good writers.
John, what you just described is a classical liberal, a fine thing that in no way resembles modern liberals. The Founding Fathers were classical liberals who held the beliefs you named. Modern liberals are their ideological opposite; intolerant, shrill, angry and close-minded.
Your so-called humor is not useful.
I think it IS useful.
How “useful” the method is depends on: how many lefties there are, and how much ammo you have.
Yes Dave, be cautious. It is all too easy to see what is going on, get angry and frustrated and start venting. I have resolved to be more thoughtful and careful in my comments as well. It is true, the left will use anything they can find to propagandize against conservatives, and they are creeping around in here and other conservative blogs/sites.
And because of that we are continually marginalized. Maybe it’s time we started acting like Muslims? They seemed to be respected by the left.
“Yes Dave, be cautious.”
Don’t worry. My right wing compound is well protected with claymores and razorwire.
Okay, where’s the “Two Thumbs Up” flag, anyway?
Another agent-provocateur troll peddling his wares.
Is this an example of “magic” language? If you clearly are joking about something, some dimwit could actually think that gunning someone down is a good idea? Humor stripped out by definition? Who decides that the humor really isn’t there?
This has the makings of a terrific Monty Python skit with Micheal Palin playing a stand up comedian and Graham Chapman interrupting with, “Look here, old boy. It’s all very well for you to joke about having to share the same bed with a farmer’s daughter but . . . .”
What comes after “but” in the case of your objection here?
What comes after the “but” is that the Left will use every adolescent comment on a conservative blog to propagandize Middle America against us. Dave Surls believes that his silly attempt at humor is more important than witholding rhetorical ammunition from the other side. That is pathetically selfish.
“where’s the humour section in this bookstore?”
“Sir this is a Liberal bookstore, we don’t ‘have’ a Humour section”.
If you’ve never been there how would you know how clearly the inaccurate conclusions and belligerent false sincerity evaporate leaving either a stunned loudmouth or misinformed player whose bluff has been called and raised but willing to recover their losses through calm logical discussion. Emotional escalation has no value when life threatening cards are on the table.
If you consider yourself a real McCoy, just ask a Hatfield.
A second reason that I don’t like Surls’ childish comment is that I’ve been held at gunpoint (not by a LEO), I’ve been shot at (not by a LEO), and I’ve had my finger on the trigger ready to fire if the opponent’s hand exited his pocket with a weapon in it. I didn’t find any of those experiences amusing. Surls is a wanna-be or a troll.
Third option:
He has a sense of humor, and finds it amusing to watch liberals go ballistic over nothing.
Works for me!
LOL.
Ridgerunner sounds like a real tough hombre, running around waving guns and getting shot at and sechlike.
Kinda like John Wayne in drag.
I’m impressed.
“A second reason that I don’t like Surls’ childish comment is that I’ve been held at gunpoint (not by a LEO), I’ve been shot at (not by a LEO), and I’ve had my finger on the trigger ready to fire if the opponent’s hand exited his pocket with a weapon in it. I didn’t find any of those experiences amusing. Surls is a wanna-be or a troll.”
Big deal, I do appreciate his humor, and don’t consider it childish. Oh and by the way, I’ve been shot once, shot at not telling how many times, and held no telling how many people at gun point. I used to be a cop, for nearly 20 years, and I don’t consider this type of humor at the least inappropriate. If some secular-humanist/socialist nut can’t take the humor too bad.
More to the point you’re allowing your opponent to dictate the terms of the engagement to you. Stop backing down from these nuts and say what you think. As long as they can push you around by saying that this expression or that joke or whatever is “insensitive” or whatever they will keep you on the defensive. Don’t back down when they throw a fit, rather go on the offensive. If you don’t they will continue to win.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the far-left and the far-right equally love to spread abuse. Anyone who ventures to express a moderate, thoughtful, science-respecting opinion …
In many folks’ minds, these are topics that thoughtful American conservatism *should* be grappling with.
But if you raise these tough issues on any ideology-first forum (whether left-wing or right-wing) be prepared to weather a storm of abuse from the true believers. Here’s a hilarious list of name-calling idioms that is taken from a *single* PJM/Tatler rant …
In dealing with ideology-first abusers, a sense of humor is very helpful … my wife thought “gaia-worshipping nocturnal emitter” was especially hilarious! She hadn’t heard that kind of talk since fifth-grade health class!
Except that AGW is a proven hoax, and “Gaia worshiper” is actually an accurate statement (as are most of the rest). As for the rest of the “idioms”, I’ve noticed that liberals have a really hard time understanding sarcasm, irony, and other forms of indirect argument. Comes from having no sense of humor, I suppose.
Riiiiight physics guy, and we all know you marxist haters on the left NEVER resort to name-calling their political enemies. No, the left is pure as the driven snow. And make no mistake, we are enemies and you will ultimately lose. That my physics wizard is a promise.
I know, I know, don’t feed the troll, but your schtick is tired physics guy. Don’t you have some advanced physics problems you should be solving? Go then, and make us all proud.
Also, easy on the smileys…what are you, in 5th grade?
i stated nocturnal emissions not emitters; you could benefit yourself by limiting pontifications and brush up on paraphrasing
“nevermind that market driven “checks and balances” is simply competition — this economic system is not “created” it is fostered– yet the amount of government intrusion needed to police “green conformity” is nothing more than a collectivists’ nocturnal emission and it is antithetical to a “free market economy”
i stand by what i said in the other thread and i still suggest you refer to the south park link on “smugness” for some tips physicist
this was my reply, in its entirety, to one of the physicists typical derailings:
““Simple. Move America toward a balanced-trade low-carbon economy via similar market-driven checks-and-balances that have already taken us to a low-acid-rain, low-fluorocarbon, low-mercury, low-pesticide-residue economy.”
nevermind that market driven “checks and balances” is simply competition — this economic system is not “created” it is fostered– yet the amount of government intrusion needed to police “green conformity” is nothing more than a collectivists’ nocturnal emission and it is antithetical to a “free market economy”
nevermind that the watermelons want to replace the lightbulb with the mercury spewing low light boondoggle and nevermind that it was an early greenie marxist (rachel carson i believe) who railed against the use of ddt in underdeveloped nations that allowed the deaths of untold millions of people who became afflicted with malaria
shame on you physicist for throwing your lot in with the collectivist vermin plotting to destroy the one example in human history which gives the proverbial “little guy” a fighters’ chance to better himself on his own terms; not to mention, where will you be, physicist, when the defenders of freedom and personal liberty are dead and gone and the totalitarians wish to purge the dead weight of the useful idiot?
with each hysterical yellow smiley you are revealing the true ecomarxist face under the warm and fuzzy gaia worshiping veneer”
Thanks for clearing that up, daxypoo. I was struggling to understand “boodoggle”.
I suppose I should have immediately recognized it as a typo, but I’ve grown so accustomed to nonsensical babbling from our resident “physicist” that I guess I just assumed it was more of the same.
BTW, don’t worry about the mercury. The toxicity of mercury (and lead) has been HUGELY exaggerated. Really, in worrying about the mercury in CFLs, you are unwittingly buying into a leftist lie. Mercury, like lead, has a very low bioavailablity. Now some COMPOUNDS of these metals are very toxic, but the actual metals are almost benign. How many people have substantial quantities of mercury in their mouths, and have had it there for decades? How many people are walking around with chunks of lead in their bodies? In fact, if a bullet is merely lodged in the flesh somewhere in the abdomen or chest cavity, a surgeon will often leave it alone because fishing for it will do more harm than good.
If you go back in the archives of National Geographic Magazine, you can find an article on mercury mining. There’s a cool picture of a miner floating in a pool of mercury. Looks like fun! There is raw mercury seeping from the walls just about everywhere. The miners spend the last half hour or so of the day in a sauna, sweating the mercury out of their pores. Health problems? Nah. Nothing statistically significant.
The leftists have been demonizing lead and mercury as part of their overall campaign to demonize productive industry and move all our manufacturing overseas. They’ve made significant progress (from their point of view) in increasing the costs of making bullets and building and operating gun ranges.
Don’t fall for it.
Mark V, you will find toxicologists strongly disagree. Moreover, as with TEPCO’s ongoing radiation disaster in japan, history plainly shows that large corporations freely lie, and astro-turf vigorously, to protect toxic products.
Consider the case of Minamata Disease for example … this is why the Japanese are so enraged at TEPCO …
Minamata disease
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease
5. “A physicist”
Is also “GreenEarth” or whatever moniker.
The point I think “A phys” and his/her multiple monikers is trying to make is that you have to be ready to fight back with real knowledge against the green/lefty group-think tank.
If we can’t shoot trolls down with REAL knowledge, then, we are DOOMED.
Just so the folks here know what sort of troll we’re dealing with, this is the who stated, in this comment right here that “[t]he sole technical answer” to the Fukushima problem was to “launch a nuclear strike on the Fukushima reactors … vaporize them … and let the fallout blow out to sea.”
The troll in question was outed by Charlie Martin around the time of that disaster as Dr. John Sidles of the University of Washington.
Call him by name, if ya want.
You know, one of the more significant problems is the fact that the leftist/socialist/marxist/communist believes s/he is recreating or establishing for the first time Utopia. Note the use of “believes” and “Utopia” in the same sentence. Anytime you see, hear, or understand that those two words represent the basis of the “argument” you are about to enter, you should realize that you have just agreed to argue about religion – which is generally not a winning proposition.
It’s amazing how many people don’t realize that this is literally true: for many of the people who follow the Progressive socialist path, it is their religion. A false religion, the kind that we were warned against so long ago, but a religion nonetheless.
Above all, never discuss reasoned political positions, it only infuriates their well-honed “feelings machine” perched above their necks. As Christ told His apostles when they begged Him for a miracle to convert the unbelievers: “All the miracles in the world won’t convert them.” Their life of guilt-free sin and faux earthly Nirvana is never to be sacrificed at the alter of truth and doing what is right.
Smugness and self-righteousness is considered by liberals to be a state of grace.
I just dismiss them with a knowing smile -it drives them bonkers….
THANK YOU, thank you all for your comments. Just last weekend we conversed with our new neighbors. I won’t waste your time but here in a nutshell were some of the nights highlights.
Indians were innocent. American white man evil, Hitler was forced to do what he had to do (that was the capper), no moral absolutes exist, if someone breaks into your house to steal he did it because he was hungry, communism is good (coming from the mouth of the neighbor with a huge pool and 5 cars in the driveway, the muslim issue is overrated by extremists and islamophobes.
My husband got up and left the table. He said he could not listen to the insanity anymore. He was called an extremist and they said that their views were “moderate”
I am ready to move to a tree house in the middle of nowhere. As Melanie Philips describes in her book, the world has turned upside down.
The Hitler comment keeps coming back, I can never look at this person the same way again.
The left can justify ANYTHING.
A few days later my husband ponted out that if you lined up VDH, Thomas Sowell, Walter Russle Mead, Theodore Dalrymple, Richard Epstein, the greatest minds, in all subjects they would surmise in a short time that you could not argue with these minds. You are in the post modern sandbox, where they have their own truth and nothing could convince them otherwise.
One went so far as to state that their is no truth.
Please define “far right”.
If the right is for small, unintrusive government, then taken to its extreme would be no government or anarchy. The far-left nutbags have taken the title, but they are just thugs who like to come to other peoples rally’s and break things.
Wow, Lolly, you’re the guy? who accused my sister of being a communist because she teaches in a public and you also accused me of being a tool of the police state because I work in the justice system. So now you are criticizing far leftists for being against the state and wanting no state. So what’s your position, Lolly, a state that you run with your friends? Is that it? Or do you just hate teachers and law enforcement because we have jobs, unlike you?
“far right” is any conservative winning an arguement against a Liberal, even id it’s a centreist viewpoint.
“Far-right” also means anybody who opposes Islamic expansionism into non-Muslim countries.
Oh, and by the way, the Nazis were never conservative or right-wing in any sense of the word. Their party was called National SOCIALIST for a reason.
The difference between Nazism and Communism is that the former wanted their socialism national, the latter wanted it international. But if you look at the butcher’s bill, they were one and the same.
On the Nazis:
Have you read Richard Evans’ trilogy on the Nazis? Very well-researched; I’m working on the second book, and according to Evans the Nazis drew the main core of their support from the middle class, various far right and ultra-nationalist parties, and Protestants. They were unpopular with the labor movement, and outright enemies of the Communists and Social Democrats. They also felt that women had no place in politics or employment, and should stay at home and raise children.
They were definitely evil, but apparently rather right-wing.
Conversely, Jonah Goldberg’s book on this subject comes to a completely different assessment of who the Nazis were. You might try reading his book before reaching any final conclusions on this matter.
Look deeper. The Nazis were enemies of the Communists, but only in regards to the scope of their ideas. The Nazis exploited the religions of Germany in an attempt to appear more acceptable, but their ultimate intent was to hijack religion and twist it to their own purposes. They hated Christianity because it represented belief in something greater than man, in the transcendent, while the Nazis were oriented to the immanent, in the superiority of man.
The Communists labelled the Nazis as right-wing as a way to discredit them, not to accurately describe them. The Nazis saw little difference between their ideas and the Communists, and tried to emphasize these similarities to recruit Communists into their ranks as they grew their organization. The Nazis were absolutely not on the right side of the political spectrum.
The article seems to imply that lefties are the loud-mouthed swaggerers and righties are the mild-mannered, rational folks. Who knew? Talk about half truths, but at least it supplies some humor for the morning’s coffee.
Both sides believe that they are in possession of THE truth. What percent of human beings need to think this way? Righties, almost by definition, tend to believe in absolutes GOOD vs EVIL and the necessity of the shedding of blood to fight evil. Lefties seem to flow to the view that people who believe in evil, must be evil, and by definition they tend to be more group-oriented.
Late in my life, I have come to the view via Clinton, GWB, and Obama,(and were I more astute, I would have learned more of it earlier from Nixon) that all leaders are flawed humans onto whom we project our own loves and hatreds. WE support them or attack them based on tribal stuff, or the equivalent. I think the article gets that part right.
But look on the bright side, our TWO tribes keep us from becoming Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, even if either tribe will tell you that the other tribe is going to take you there…yesterday.
Equivocation – it’s been done before. Try a different tactic.
The silly utopian goal of most Lefties has been tried often and has always failed – typically at great cost in both lives and money. Those of us who actually hold down jobs (many are Righties) are not interested in financing a bunch of losers in their failing quest for a world where they can sip sissy drinks at the cafe all day and still get a check from Uncle Sam, whom they badmouth at every turn.
Yes, our leaders are flawed. We all are. BFD.
So libs don’t believe in Evil and think that those who do are Evil. That is circular reasoning. How do you function in life when your brain so easily accepts contradictory assertions?
The bottom line: My tribe wants Liberty and Freedom.
Yours tribe wants mindless serfdom.
Suck rocks.
It’s times like this, I wish PJM had a thumbs up, Steve H. Instead I broke the leg on my chair from jumping up and down on it.
Absolutely true. It is not possible to equate left and right as just opposite sides of the same extreme or dogmatic coin. Conservatism is based on principles from which all ideas and policies flow. Liberalism is based on dogma and peer group pressure based in Marxism and the idea that humanity must be controlled if it cannot be eliminated. Make no mistake: liberalism and leftyism are nihilistic dogmas.
I was a lefty for 26 years. One can recover from it and it *is* very like ejecting yourself from the Matrix when you do so. It does require relinquishing one’s dependence on peer group approval. It requires an acknowledgment of facts, an acceptance of conservative principles – which are based on immutable laws of nature and man – and an intellectual coherence of thought based on the facts and principles. Most of all, it requires strong character and the ability to maintain confidence in one’s beliefs no matter the company or the peer group or the family pressure. Conservatism is a solitary state of a true individual. Lefties and libs are herd animals who cannot exist without protection from the rest of the herd. This is why most conservatives have many lib or lefty friends but relatively few lefties can say the same. Lefties are actually quite intolerant.
One can be conservative and never listen to, read or watch other conservatives, once the principles and ideas are internalized. This is not possible for libs and lefties, who get their dogma from and reinforce it via academia, the MSM, and Hollywood. One of the main reasons for the success of the righty New Media is simply that conservatives need counterbalance to the endless stream of lies and propaganda we get from the same entities that perpetuate socialist-think.
Lastly, the most lefty of people are hypocrites because they don’t impose it on themselves; only others. Any lefty who does not give all his money away immediately to those less fortunate is a hypocrite. Any lefty who drives a car, wears clothes, lives in a house, travels on airplanes, watches movies, etc., is a hypocrite. The end result of all lefty policies is the end of all the above and indeed the end of all modern life and most human life.
None of the above paragraph is true of conservatives and conservatism.
Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia are both found on the side of collectivist utopia. Nazi Germany being race centered. Stalinist Russia being class centered. So one is the vision of a collective race utopia and the other is a collective class utopia.
As an American Conservative my ideal is the dutch republic or the venetian republic. I want to be free to enjoy the fruits of my labor and make no claim on the fruits of other peoples labor.
Sure D-White, when did you jump into your blender and emerge to be poured into a glass that filled it half way?
As if the Universe consists of “righties” and “lefties” with the Lone Ranger Pick It Fence But as having been maybe virgin born.
Oh well, planning another trip to Fred Meyer’s in Wasilla?
Lather was thirty years old today…
That has got to be the most incoherent comment I’ve read this week. But if you start by mocking a man because his name rhymes with White, as if that’s a bad thing, you already identify yourself as a knee-jerk… er, jerk.
It seems you got something out of the “incoherence” AM. Not that mocking and jerkiness are necessarily mutually exclusive of incoherence.
Look at the D-White nickname as somewhat like A-Rod etc. A sense of awe and respect well beyond the bounds of what reality dictates.
D-White is quite the artist as well, using found leftist ideology and molding it into “centrist” fence sitting goodthink. Much like a certain Mr. President attempts to do now with the debt limit talks.
Wasilla, Fred Meyer and Lather? Only the D-White knows…
Why would I want liberal (statist left-wing totalitarian) friends? Seriously.
I tell them I’m a classic liberal – like Jefferson and Madison. They usually stare back without comprehending.
Nice.
Plus…
“I’d like to remain close to old friends and form new friendships, too.”
You are making a problem of their reactions, when instead, it is a great way to filter out those intolerant people with whom you would not want to be friends.
I go to a gaming club to play board war games. One group plays miniatures battles. They have been playing together for a long time. Recently, a couple of them were discussing politics, and the liberal in the group could not stand their views and stopped coming to play. He refuses to even talk to them about it. The Conservatives are willing to be friends and play, but the liberal is not.
One hates to lose one’s playmates of many years, but it is really for the best. Oil and water do not mix.
“What not to do: Don’t think you can convert a liberal to your views. Political affiliation has become a matter of tribal and personal identification with a group. Although it may appear to be rational, it isn’t, entirely. It’s emotional. The desire to remain a liberal, even in the face of all the evidence of its failures, is born of humanity’s — and all living creatures’ — deepest instincts to affiliate with others and to retain that affiliation regardless of logic or facts.”
Well said. You will never, ever, convince a liberal to vote for a conservative. Never happen. But in 2008, a lot of independents and some conservatives voted for a liberal, Obama. I’m sure they’ll never make that mistake again, given what’s been happening for almost three years now. Nope, liberals will always remain liberals. So it’s up to conservatives to convince independents that there is a better way to run a government. In 2012, I think most clear-thinking people are going to be ready for a change. I guess that leaves out liberals, though.
Not sure how well your bold assertion stands up in the presence of the proprietor of this site.
Some common traits of far-***ies (fill in the blank with leftie, rightie, greenie, libertarian, religious fundamentalist, single-taxers, homeopaths, whatever): (1) fondness for terms of abuse, (2) willful ignorance of math, science and history, (3) prefers cherry-picked facts, (4) anger when contradicted, (5) inability to accept compromise, (6) words of a sacred text or prophet (Marx, Chomsky, Ayn Rand, Reagan) are regarded as beyond question, (7) exists in “bubble” of like-minded folks, (8) contempt for all who dissent, (9) prefers censorship to dialog, (10) dreams of a revolution/messiah/apocalypse that will compel the world to “truth”.
Eric Hoffer spelled it out in The True Believer.
http://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310474111&sr=1-1
So those of us who actually have firmly-held beliefs should just roll over and submit to whoever has the bullhorn and/or thinks they are smarter than the rest of us.
And we are supposed to believe certain people are smarter because they shun labels and encourage those who disagree with them to just shut up and cave to their Higher Mind. Having a “label” doesn’t make you a “far” anything.
In a compromise between food and poison, the poison always wins. Some things should never be compromised.
And there ARE some things worth fighting for.
“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.” – Dante
(and no, that is not a “sacred text”.)
Steve H, there are a lot of folks who feel just like you … unfortunately no two of them agree!
As for Dante … heck … wasn’t Dante a spokesman for a church that famously was intolerant of all forms of freethinking? Even to the point of torturing and burning dissenters (for their own good, of course)?
America’s constitution was written by folks who believed just the *opposite* as Dante … freethinkers … who were *committed* to checks-and-balances … folks who *embraced* compromise … and founded a republican democracy based upon freethinking principles.
Inquisition: the Reign of Fear
URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=ICsgW-2EX8AC&printsec=frontcover
Well, actually there are a fair number who do agree; we just choose not to get too snarky about it. If you’re going to hit on the medieval church, please learn to differentiate between the actual Church and the political papacy (see also the various writings by Dr. Martin Luther on the subject) which was not exactly conforming to Scriptural edicts on the subject of the separation of powers between the two kingdoms.
Being a conservative means to realize that, ultimately, all human efforts and organizations are flawed and will experience trouble. That does not mean that they are entirely worthless, or that some are not better than others. Just that we must defend what is good, defy what is bad, and study very hard to know the difference.
Thanks for your clarification on the enormous difference between the church and the political papacy. I think the ‘a physicist’ needs to learn a bit more of history rather than cherry-picking his opinions.
And it is quite incorrect of ‘a physicist’ to, contemptuously, to ‘Steve h’ suggest that dissenters are alienated even among themselves. And I agree with Steve – there are indeed some things worth fighting for. The Founders knew that, and the Allies in WWII knew that.
“Snarky”? Was Tom Paine “snarky”?
No founder was a more fervent advocate of freethinking than Tom Paine … or a more vigorous critic of organized religion … unless maybe it was Thomas Jefferson … or perhaps (later) Abraham Lincoln … hmmm … or maybe Ben Franklin?
Gosh … there were quite a few freethinkers among America’s Founders … and I don’t recall they were all that quiet about their beliefs … the Founders being a “snarky” bunch by-and-large … who were very “pushy” regarding their beliefs.
It’s true that the most vigorous writings of the Founders are seldom taught today … `cuz the Founders’ writings tend to a little too strong … a little too double-distilled … for the likes of the ideological left *or* the ideological right …
Nowadays we gotta protect young folks especially, from the Founders’ ideas!
The Age of Reason; Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology
by Thomas Paine
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason
No, Dante was among other things a commentator on his times. He placed contemporary celebrities and personal enemies in the various circles of hell. Akin to placing Anthony Wiener, Casey Anthony, and Charlie Rangel in the appropriate levels of hell for their sins.
Good job on the Physics degree but you must have missed Medieval Theology and History. Saint Augustine of Hippo wrote extensively about free will and believed that the grace of Christ was indispensable to human freedom. While the Catholic Church was not always particularly tolerant, there are far worse institutions then and now.
By the Middle Ages, Augustine’s North African home town was Muslim – a religion that did not and does not believe in free will, only submission.
While I agree with some of physicist’s statements, his knee-jerk reaction to the mention of Dante may mark him as a true believer as well. Scientist-atheist-humanist-liberal I’m guessing. Got his intellectual ducks in a nice, neat, smug little row. A champion of critical thinking. The science is settled – no room for doubt, human nature, or unintended consequences. He speaks with the voice of reason, but I’m pretty sure he’s pretty sure he’s right and that anyone who disagrees with him is an emotional, superstitious, non-critical-thinking idiot.
Unlike some of his peers, however, he seems to have retained the belief that other people with different ways of thinking should have a say in how their country is run. Unlike some scientist-atheist-humanist-liberals I’ve heard from, he doesn’t seem to believe that just being an “expert” gives you the natural right to tell less “qualified” people what’s best for them. He seems to value democracy and the processes of discussion, debate, and compromise that make democracy possible. I’m hoping he does so without reservation.
It’s not just extremists that cause problems. We all want to be right. It helps to remember that just because we have a lot of facts and have made a logical pattern out of them, doesn’t mean we really understand what’s going on. There’s nothing more dangerous than someone who knows absolutely that he is right.
Old Soldier, your post was outstanding IMHO. With minor changes in punctuation, your post could have come straight from the pen of the Founders:
Old Soldier, to me your fine post captured the essence of American republican democracy.
If embracing these principles makes me a conservative … then please call me 100% conservative … and if embracing these principles makes me a liberal … then please call me 100% a liberal.
Whoops sorry, it was “Bugs” who wrote the post that I quoted. Outstanding post, Bugs!
I don’t agree with your list, in particular, your suggestion that compromise should be accepted.
In science, there is no compromise; there is just hard data. Either the temperature is X or Y; either the earth is flat or a sphere; either AGW is factual or it is not. There is no compromise possible in science.
Equally, in ethics, either you steal or do not steal..and so on.
I think the key attributes of a sophist, which is defined as anyone who accepts an opinion and sticks to it by means of tenacity (don’t bother me with facts; my mind is made up)..are that they operate solely within these conclusions. They do not examine the data/logic that leads one to this conclusion.
All that would be useful if political decisions were based on science and ethics. They’re not, in case you hadn’t noticed.
Assuming AGW is “proven science,” with no debate required as to its essential truth, why would people refuse to make the political decisions required to address it? Neither science nor ethics can answer that question. The fact – and it is a fact – that people ignore scientific evidence and refuse to take the ethically-obvious action required to address AGW simply doesn’t fit into the frameworks of science or ethics. It’s like half the population refuses to “believe” that 2+2=4, for reasons that have nothing to do with math. That’s why people who put exclusive faith in science and ethics break down and resort to name-calling when confronted by “disbelievers.”
bugs – ‘a physicist’s’ list didn’t confine itself to political rhetoric, and therefore, I reject his listing of ‘compromise’ as a desirable trait. As one example, I suggested that in science, compromise is unreliable.
Equally, in politics, compromise can be equally untenable. Why should one compromise over increasing debt? It ought to be simply rejected. As for AGW, it is most definitely not ‘proven science’..and no science can function if its axioms are removed from doubt.
ETAB, one of the best books that is (partly) about how science *really* works is Ed Wilson’s autobiography Naturalist. This is a terrific book especially for young people to read, because its also a very personal story of coming to terms (imperfectly) with a an imperfect family and an imperfect world.
In particular, though, Wilson goes to great lengths to explain the processes by which science manages to be respectful of data … and yet is about more than data … and manages to be respectful of compromise … and yet manages to be faithful to principles too.
To understand the “greens”, one has to read their *best* works … just as to understand conservatives, one has to read *their* best works … for me The Federalist is unsurpassed as a summary statement of American-style conservatism.
‘a physicist’ – in another thread, you have defined yourself as a fervent believer in AGW, a most unscientific stance to take. I doubt and continue to doubt that you are, in fact, a qualified physicist for your posts have given no indication of any scientific background.
With regard to your post on Edward Wilson – your phrases of ‘respectful of data, respectful of compromise and faithful to principles’ are totally empty rhetoric. Surely you must realize that those phrases, in themselves, are meaningless abstractions.
I’m not a fan of Wilson, and completely reject his genetic reductionism, his sociobiology, his rejection of free will..etc.
One of the best works as to how science works – is by Charles S. Peirce, but I strongly doubt that you’ve read any of his work.
You are correct ETAB … Charles Peirce’s 1847 A meteorological account of the weather in Philadelphia was indeed one of America’s first works on climate science!
Yes, Charles Peirce’s work *does* provide some very interesting early data confirming the reality of climate change.
Oh wait … that was a earlier, different Charles Peirce.
Philadelphia Area Weather Book
URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=mon_ivVXUY4C&pg=PA77
As I said – I doubt if you have read Charles Peirce as to how science works. Your answer was proof of that lack.
By the way, ‘climate change’ has nothing to do with AGW and you are, as shown in other threads, an ardent supporter of AGW. The fact that the climate on this planet changes over the millenia is hardly novel and is a proven scientific fact. AGW, on the other hand, which focuses on human causality, is not a proven scientific axiom.
Again, Edward Wilson is hardly a scion of the scientific method and I reject his theories, while Peirce is one of the brightest and wisest analysts of this method.
ETAB, Peirce’s semiotics are still studied today … Peirce’s mathematics much less so … Peirce’s science not at all. This is because it’s mighty tough to write cogently about the workings of the mind (as Peirce’s generation did) when one has very little knowledge of the workings of the brain!
Seldom has any genius been born as tragically too soon as Peirce was. We are all of us living now in the century that Peirce *should* have been born into.
In reply to ‘a physicist’ – nope, you are quite wrong.
Peircean semiotics, as you term it, is actually logic – and it is most certainly studied, written about and used today, as a mathematical logic. There’s no such thing as ‘Peircean mathematics’; mathematics is mathematics – and Peirce’s broad and in-depth analysis of mathematics was decades ahead of others; and his use of it within his scientific and philosophical analysis is indeed studied, written about and used today.
And don’t waste your smug derisionary pity on Peirce; his scientific, mathematical and logical analyses are used in physics, computer science, robotics, biology, and bioengineeering today. You don’t have to be alive to have your theories used in a constructive manner…or are you ignoring all our past scientists and mathematicians and engineers? Hmmm?
Again, as I said, I strongly doubt that you have ever read a single word of Peirce’s work – and googling won’t suffice.
ETAB, by far the foremost mathematical forum in the world is MathOverflow … where anyone can ask any mathematical question they want … and instantly receive free answers from the foremost mathematicians in the world.
ETAB, why don’t you search MathOverflow‘s 20,000+ answers for the name “Peirce”? You will find that Charles Peirce’s name is mentioned quite seldom … in roughly ten questions/answers all told (be aware that another nineteenth century mathematician, Benjamin Peirce, is mentioned comparably often to Charles).
The point is that pretending Peirce is central to modern mathematics is simply incorrect-on-the-facts. It’s not so much that Peirce was wrong, but that he was born too early. Peirce’s ideas on logic proved to be foresighted … his ideas on biology proved to be kinda goofy … and there were a lot of other math-and-science developments that Peirce simply didn’t foresee. Math-and-science aren’t static, you know … and Peirce has been dead for a century.
MathOverflow: A place for mathematicians to ask and answer questions
URL: http://mathoverflow.net/faq
‘not-a-physicist’ – your cherry-picking of online sites is irrelevant.
As I said, there’s no such thing as ‘Peircean mathematics’; there is only mathematics – and the analysis of various theorems is not by ‘inventor’ but by theorems. So, don’t try your false tactic of suggesting that IF an individual’s name is not mentioned in one webiste, THEN, it means the individual’s work in that area is irrelevant.
As I said, it is obvious that you have never read one word of Peirce’s writings – and your statement that ‘his ideas on biology proved to be kind of goofy’…are you out of your mind? There are articles, journals, books, based on Peircean biological principles! Again, it is obvious you know nothing about Peirce…and, are neither a scientist nor a physicist. You are an AGW cultist – and, as such, a ‘leftist’…someone whose opinions are mythic and emotional (aka E. Wilson’s reductionist and determinist sociobiology).
Enjoy your intellectual blinkers.
LOL … ETAN, if you can name any site … other than MathOverflow … that has multiple Fields Medal winners (which mathematics’ highest award) … who are on-line right now … why then I’ll concede to cherry-picking in recommending it!
Seriously … anyone who wants to watch modern mathematics in action, can watch it happen, every day and for free, on MathOverflow.
As for Professor Peirce, he *was* a remarkable mathematician and scientist … of the nineteenth century. But uhhh … math and science have moved on since then, right?
For example, with regard to evolutionary biology, Peirce was sympathetic to both Darwin and Lamarck … Peirce had no way of foreseeing that advances in molecular biology would give the scientific victory to Darwin’s theory of evolution … including human evolution.
This leads me to wonder, ETAN, whether your liking for Peirce’s theories is associated to a dislike of Darwinian evolution … would this be the case?
MathOverflow’s Users (Top-Rated First)
URL: http://mathoverflow.net/users
My two cents,
I find that I can usually maintain a friendship with people of the opposite political persuasion under one of two circumstances. One, if we both look at politics in terms of individual issues rather than tribal markers – even if we disagree, that helps a lot. Two, if we can simply agree that we hate each other’s ideology, so let’s STFU on that front and talk about something else. The vast majority of friendships that have ended or never were, for me, weren’t even because of political differences per se, but just because the person in question couldn’t STFU about politics.
So that’s my advice. If they can respect your personal space or start talking about politics in something other than a “these people suck!” context, they’re keepers. If they insist on being assholes, don’t hang out with them. IMHO.
(Bizarrely, I gave the same advice to a lib not too long ago).
“Let’s agree to disagree” and change the subject. If they persist, as boors will, leave. Those people aren’t friends, or acquaintances. They are members of a cult.
Forcible deprogramming is not allowed. They will, on their own, come to their senses or not. There is nothing you can do about it.
Right on. It doesn’t work to demonize Liberals (I know, I’ve tried). A lot of them can be decent (if misguided) people. It is very much like a religious cult — based on emotion and belief rather than logic and reason; this explains the rage, venom and over-reaction toward apostates. Things are getting even more vehement these days — because the Messiah is beginning to reveal his feet of clay and his supporters are experiencing their first twinges of doubt? I practice point #10 assiduously and wonder if it makes any difference.
Thanks again for this. It’s nice to know there are others of us out there dealing with the same issues.
Tell your friends that you’re the liberal and it’s they who are the ones who are pawns of the corporate globalist scheme to crush the little guy under the elitist foot.
Seriously, yahoo the word “liberal” and you’ll find that the classic definition is one who believes in small government and individual God-given rights like, well, the right to life.
Ask your friends why they think impoverished elderly widows should have an ever increasing property tax burden so already very rich teachers and government workers can have even more money so they can buy even larger gas-guzzling SUVs.
Most of my liberal friends have the same values that I have it’s just that they are less informed.
They still like me and tolerate me when they hear my views. I’m even getting them to question their “own authorities.”
Just understand what your values and goals are, and ask your friends a lot of questions rather than simply make assertions.
OK, you can make the assertion that it is they who are the pawns of of the corporate globalist scheme to crush the little guy under the elitist foot.
Not all liberals are reflexively hateful toward conservatives. I’m a conservative, and I’ve prided myself on having personal friends from all across the political spectrum, from near-socialist (voted for Ralph Nader) to liberal to conservative to libertarian. We have gone out to movies and enjoyed ourselves. We ask each other’s help for personal problems like illness or family matters. We can also laugh at ourselves, a great way to defuse smugness.
We can do this because first of all, none of us lives mainly for politics. We’re all mature enough to know that there’s a big world out there beyond politics.
And we’re also mature enough to know that routinely framing current politics in apocalyptic terms (“This is the biggest crisis and the most critical election that America [or the world] has EVER faced!”) is childish and cliche. (Has there ever been an election year where the candidates said “This election is less important than most past elections”? It’s always “the most critical election in our lifetimes.” Always. Every single election is always framed in apocalyptic terms. Yawn.)
If you really believe that the apocalypse is at hand if your side doesn’t win the next election, then you’re going to become just grim and insufferable, considering anyone who’s not on your side as “the enemy.”
If you want to know what keeps politics interfering with friendship, it can start with either a left-winger or a right-winger who is:
– Grim-faced and humorless;
– Apocalyptic, convinced that American or global catastrophe looms if his side doesn’t win the next election;
– A political junkie for whom political activism is the most important thing in his life, even over friendship and perhaps even over love
I don’t care what such a person’s politics is. I wouldn’t want him as a friend, even if his politics were similar to mine. He’d be a real downer anyway.
Look at Mary Matalin and James Carville. He’s a staunch Democrat who worked for Clinton; she’s a conservative who despised Clinton. They fell in love and got married anyway.
They can do this, because they know how to put politics in its proper perspective: A game of strategy, not the sole thing in which the fate of America (or the world) rests.
They can do this, because they know how to put politics in its proper perspective: A game of strategy, not the sole thing in which the fate of America (or the world) rests.
That works until you face a decision which must be made in accordance with your philosophy. Suppose, for instance, that Mary Matalin got pregnant, the baby had Down’s syndrome, and James Carville insisted on getting an abortion?
That decision would be up to Mary and James – mostly Mary, I expect. It would NOT be up to a bunch of political nuts screaming BABY KILLERS! or KEEP YOUR POLITICS OUT OF MY UTERUS! or some such nonsense, thank God.
When a decision is handled by individuals, things can be worked out. As soon as it enters the public sphere, chaos ensues.
Ah, so you agree that a woman has the right to abort a fetus simply because it’s female, part black, or potentially homosexual?
The minute I read someone describing himself or herself as “mature” it’s a real red flag. It drips condescension.
Living in a very red state as I do, libs tend to be less hostile toward conservatives. Still, mention that you are a conservative in certain places and milieu in a nearby large city and you are guaranteed at least one disdainful turn of the head, a nervous laugh (or cough), or condescending words delivered in a reasonably pleasant tone.
The author is right about libs being groupie-like in their thinking and in the way they are emboldened by the presence of other libs because if facts do not support their arguments this certainly does in their minds.
Arguing with a liberal (esp. a San Francisco liberal) is like voluntary bleeding.
On any topic under the sun, their minds (such as they are) are completely unresponsive to anything but the knee jerk liberal meme and the approved mantra.
Save your breath. Just point them to…
A Video
A picture of their brain
It is far less stressful than standing on your head trying to use (shudder) “logic”.
Well some Democrat voters still think that this is party of Truman and Kennedy.
Their thinking is stuck in the 1950′s. They refuse to look at the redistribution of wealth as a marxists philosophy. I know a bunch of these people are my relatives. One sister said well, at least they’re doing something about energy. Huh? The other one said about the Trillion Dollar deficits, well Bush spent, too. When I asked how long we are going to last as a country spending more than Trillion than we take in, all I get in blank stares.
So they continue to vote Democrat, out of habit, out of ignorance.
I’m convinced this is part of the reason why the elderly consistently vote for Democrats. They falsely believe that the Dems actually DO care about them, when it couldn’t be further from the truth. My father likes to tell the story of how he was a Roosevelt Democrat because of his parents, up until Jimmy Carter. My dad says that after voting for Carter and seeing what a mess he made of the country, he turned Republican and never looked back.
I was particularly struck by #3 as I read your column, Belladonna.
“(3) Your tone matters. Don’t be defensive, condescending, or aggressive with others, even when, or especially when, they address you in these ways. Be clear and friendly — and give them a chance to continue the conversation or let it drop.”
The reason why it struck me is because it sounds very similar to how one is supposed to interact with a new, potentially aggressive dog. Approach it carefully, maintain your calm, don’t incite it to attack. Questioning a liberal’s worldview is the equivalent of making a sharp movement in the presence of a skittish pitbull. Like poorly socialized dogs, liberals will often react based on instinct, snarling and barking or even physically attacking to cow their opponent into submission. If the conservative interloper maintains control of themselves, they will also control the situation.
You will, of course, encounter the occasional rabid liberal if you’re exposed to a lot of liberals on a daily basis, as anyone who lives in a very blue state and/or city can attest. I live in blue-blue New England, so I know of what I speak. In those cases its best to simply leave the area, warn others, and call animal control. Your former friend may protest being treated like an animal, but it’s for his or her own good, not to mention the well-being of others.*
A conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. A moderate is a rabid liberal who’s spent a night in the tanty fending off propositions for many different services, none of which sound particularly safe, hygienic, or legal.
(*I am, of course, exaggerating. You should never lock up a rabid liberal. They cause too much property damage when kept in confined areas. For evidence, see the Wisconsin State House circa February 2011.)
PS — My two best friends are both diehard libs (one’s a lesbian in WA, the other is a unionized schoolteacher eco-nut), and they are both well-aware that I’m a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. They’ve known this for many years now, and we’re still good friends. It IS possible for libs and conservatives to maintain friendships, so long as everyone understands the dynamics in play.
I have a close, bright, and well educated relative who is a dedicated liberal. I asked her the following. “Knowing all that can be recalled concerning Ronald Reagan’s background (writings, speeches, associations, etc.) one could only conclude that his over-arching political philosophy was that of a conservative. Applying the same test to Obama what would you conclude his over-arching poliotical philosophy to be?” Her answer. “What do you think I am, a political philosopher?” I wanted to say “no, just willfully ignorant”. But in order to not cause a major issue, I didn’t. Try this question on the next liberal you encounter. Then just smile when they begin to babble. They know the answer but will die before they will admit it.
No, really you should have just said it. It would have been fun to watch the histrionics and subsequent meltdown. Why do you protect her feelings? You’d be doing her a favor to give her a whiff of the mess that is her brain.
Are there really any liberals anymore? Frankly, most conservatives in 2011 actually have beliefs that were considered liberal 40 years ago. Most liberals in 2011 have beliefs that were considered communist 40 years ago.
Seems to me that 99% of today’s “liberals” want to take what others earn and force their will on you. I don’t call that liberalism. I call it totalitarianism.
It only takes a second to find out if they are the 1 in a 100 liberal or a totalitarian. Just say you are willing to pay taxes for what was in place in 2007 and nothing more (an EXTREMLY liberal position). Then they will reveal themselves.
And don’t hold your breath hoping to find a real liberal.
When the conversation gets around to “class warfare” as it inevitably will, ask your liberal friend “What class are you?”
They do not want to identify with the rich (which they most likely are) but they don’t want to appear to be failures (They profess to help the lowly but would never BE lowly), as it’s all about money.
Offer to help out with redistribution of wealth by adding your two incomes together and dividing it down the middle. Or suggest swapping incomes. This only works if you are sure you earn less than the other person. In my case, that’s just about everyone, so it works.
Conservatives are pro Constitutional America.
Liberals are anti Constitutional America.
“Never the twain shall meet.”
Great column; I will link to it from my Old Jarhead blog. I have a very liberal brother who assumes that all conservatives who don’t agree with him must be stupid, evil or both. Since he knows I’m not stupid, he becomes very angry at the drop of a hint at what he sees as my willful blindness and support of evil.
Robert A. Hall
Author: The Coming Collapse of the American Republic
(All royalties go to a charity to help wounded veterans)
All the liberals I know think conservatives are stupid, evil, or both.
Humor! I sidestep the arguments and tell them “You’re being intolerant of my alternative lifestyle”, or “I have bad news for you; all eight of my kids are also pro-life conservatives”. Or, “Isn’t it weird how both conservatives and liberals think there are too many liberals? But, conservatives want you to change your mind, and liberals just want to kill themselves off with widespread contraceptive use, abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia. Gosh, it’s just too depressing to me, for me to want to be liberal” (not funny, but it gets the point across without an argument)
Liberals, you mean leftists I assume. Their state is to be explained simply as aggression, and/or hate, institutionalized, cultivated, justified, and channeled through the seemingly religious belief in central government Intelligence of a higher sort is ascribed to those who believe government has curative powers, no amount of failure touches them. Witness what’s going on today with the utter flop of Obama and left politics. Their entire selves are tied up in this, the media cultivated it and encourages it, dopes that they are. This is only a pattern that has always been there, it took the growth of central power and the willful closing of minds, as with any blind faith, to make it more prevalent, and worse.
when living in the socialist paradise in “Europe” (that is, Central/East Europe is not considered Europe at all by the Western brethren) I developed a bullet proof approach that works like magic when talking to liberals. It’s simple – heap praises on their policies. Take for example the persistent unemployment. Rather than criticizing Obamas for that, praise Him: People are no longer being exploited by greedy capitalists, have time for family life and intellectual pursuits like reading New York Times, listening NPR and so on. Liberals are completely devoid of sense of humor and can’t understand sarcasm.
How right you are, Belladonna!
After having had a few such experiences, I think I could write a novel about a medieval woman treated as a heretic.
How many dinner parties were broken up simply because I honestly answered a political question addressed to me?
Aren’t Clarice’s Pieces chocolate chip cookies?
I seldom get into this position, but I guess I haven’t lived in San Francisco either. All you have to do is say something about the religious nature of environmentalism and you won’t be mistaken for a collectivist liberal. Or, talk about how you can’t understand what in the world a union worker could have in common with an environmentalist. This always works because it exposes the shallowness of the useful idiots collectivists like to exploit.
I know the feeling! I was at a luncheon reception after a funeral in Massachusetts and someone began to talk about how stupid George Bush was. Now I’m mot great of George Bush, but it was more than I could take. I pointed out that Barack Obama was the product of affirmative action and refused to release his college transcripts because his grades were likely worse than Bush.
Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to call something tribal if loyalty to parents trumped all else in the hearts of well-educated American children?
How can we consider a political affiliation tribal if the opinion of relatives is discounted in favor of that of their friends and classmates?
Denigration of old age and fetishicization of youth breaks tribal bonds. My children display the following attitudes toward me if I dare to even ask them a question concerning politics: condescension, contempt, anger, incivility, and ungratefulness.
I am a French born American. Back in France,I thought of myself as a liberal, because the only definition of liberalism I knew was that offered by the example of Thomas Jefferson. By that light, I am still a liberal. But I discovered that in the US, “liberal” means going by the lights of John Kerry, and by that definition, I’m definitely not a liberal. By modern standards, I am a conservative, and it often baffles people I meet. If you come from France, you must be liberal, right? Why?
Bottom line for me: America would not be such a powerful magnet for so many folks around the planet if it was not so different. And it is in a large part so very different because it is conservative, in the sense being a good custodian of America’s principled foundations. Because of this, I sometimes visualize “liberals” in America as lost Europeans who don’t seem to realize they accidentally live in the wrong place.
What if they spent a few years in Europe, not as tourists, but as residents? If they don’t come back, they are authentically liberals, in the modern sense of the word. But I expect most of them will return, having understood that, in the big picture, they are conservative, in other words, Thanks God, culturally American.
BTW, When European say “conservative”, they often mean one anxious to preserve the privileges of the aristocracy, so watch out for labels!
“Because of this, I sometimes visualize “liberals” in America as lost Europeans who don’t seem to realize they accidentally live in the wrong place.”
Excellent, Professor
Far-left liberals are contemptuous of conservatives … and so the *best* way for conservatives to confound far-lefties is to behave opposite to far-leftie stereotypes … a conservative who is civil, respectful of math-and-science, and knowledgeable in original-source history will confound the far-lefties every time.
Far-right conservatives are contemptuous of liberals … and so the *best* way for liberals to confound far-righties is to behave opposite to far-rightie stereotypes … a liberal who is civil, respectful of math-and-science, and knowledgeable in original-source history will confound the far-righties every time.
Wait … does this mean that far-lefties and far-righties are very similar? … very similar in their abusive language? … very similar in their disrespect for math-and-science? … very similar in their willful ignorance of original-source history?
Yessir … far-lefties and far-righties can come to understand one another mighty easily … by simply looking in a mirror!
What’s with the constant use of smileys, anyway?
That’s to signify the vacant look on the faces of most leftist cultists.
Look in the eye’s of an Obamabot. There’s nothing there.
It’s
official. A 
physicist 
is 
A 
nut.
Another perspective… A much different approach can be FUN and effective for those of use who USED to be liberal Democrats. I like to be polite and non-judgmental towards so-called liberal-leaning people but aggressively blunt about the liberal aka socialistic policies they have been brain-washed to extol. The hypocrisy is ALWAYS evident between what they REALLY want for themselves and what the liberal-socialistic policy line is. You want freedom, liberty, success and tolerance BUT… liberal-socialistic policies are the OPPOSITE – duh! It’s good, I think, to plant healthy seeds of doubt into minds of liberal slush and let them wrestle with their conscience as they try to fall to sleep at night! I don’t expect immediate results, but this approach for ex-libs tends to earn a measure of respect, provided you are not obnoxious to them like they usually are to you.
Can I be a smug right-winger?
*flashes boobs*
*giggles*
Dang!
Delia flashes her perfect breasts, and, naturally, I’m looking the other way!!!
There ain’t no justice.
Justice! HUZZa!
‘JustUS’ get along with each other!
*flashes boobies and giggles again*
Looks like this new column will be a winner! Belladonna R. takes a fairly common situation, and treats it seriously and completely. And she reminds us of all the times we’ve heard liberal friends dismiss political opponents as “stupid, really stupid”. Don’t they know how stupid THAT sounds? I’ll look forward to the next advice column from Ms. Rogers.
Looks like this new column will be a winner! Belladonna R. takes a fairly common situation, and treats it seriously and completely. And she reminds us of all the times we’ve heard liberal friends dismiss political opponents as “stupid, really stupid”.
really? as if this entire comment thread hasn’t been dedicated to calling anyone who is not a ‘conservative’ stupid?
the smugness of the comments, as well as the entire article is what’s unbearable…you have all basically said that all you conservatives are right and if those who don’t believe what you believe are intolerant, ignorant, hypocrital, whining idiots…
get over yourselves…you are not the only ones with the right answers…perhaps if you put aside your smugness you would find that not every democrat is a leftist liberal loon…
Margaret writes: “you have all basically said that all you conservatives are right and if those who don’t believe what you believe are intolerant, ignorant, hypocrital, whining idiots…”
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!
Margaret,
There are several jerks commenting on this thread. Regardless of their ages, they are adolescents. Please don’t hold their comments against grown-up conservatives.
Dear margaret;
Comments have to be less intellectually challenging to adequately communicate with the “non-conservative” readers.
(Some don’t even speak English, yet they respond to comments anyway!)
Try it; It works.
It’s always a shock, be it mild or profound, to discover that you and a friend can both be intelligent, informed, and honest–and yet disagree.
“Sir this is a Liberal bookstore, we don’t ‘have’ a Humour section”.
and
I’ve noticed that liberals have a really hard time understanding sarcasm, irony, and other forms of indirect argument. Comes from having no sense of humor, I suppose.
five words:
jon stewart and stephen colbert
yep, they’re are seriously not funny dudes with zero ratings…
“A LIBERAL BELIEVES SOCIALISM FAILED IN THE PAST BECAUSE THEY WEREN’T INVOLVED”
Winston Churchill “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re over 30 and not conservative, you have no brains. …”
A liberal is someone who denies stated facts and castigates the results:
Taxes in the 90′s = Revenue to the libs today
Subsidizing loosing companies and loosing products = Green and Union projects
Paying more in Taxes = Patriotism
Fiscal Responsibility = Right Wing Extremism
Republicans = the politicians in the back seat drinking slurpee’s
$1 in Savings = Draconian Cuts
Profitability = Corporate Greed
$250,000 = the rich
The only consistency of a liber that never changes is TAXING IS THE ANSWER
It’s always a shock, be it mild or profound, to discover that you and a friend can both be intelligent, informed, and honest–and yet disagree.
indeed…and in the world i inhabit, we all get along…seems to be how it works in the real world, unless you are a horrible boor and exist only to shove your worldview down everyone else’s throats…
All those who emphasize the safety of your own numbers are right. There is no point in engaging when you are greatly outnumbered. Make new friends!
“It is unpleasant to be treated as a moron, or criminally insane, a traitor to all that’s good and true, and, of course, a pariah, just because of your politics.”
All kidding aside, most of my friends aren’t just left wing, they’re ultra-left wing (kinda comes with the territory when you’re a hippie), and I don’t get treated like a pariah.
Maybe folks that are having these problems ought to find a better class of friends and associates.
During the 08 election I visited a friend in Florida who was under the political infulence of her Progressive daughter. She was appauled that I did not believe Obama was “the one”! Had I always believed Conservatives? Conservatives and Bush had brought our Country to it’s knees, how could you still believe in them. She thrust her dinner napkin on the table, went to her room,and slammed the door. Fortunately, I was leaving the next day. After being friends for 20 years, this was quite a shock. We are finally talking again but she prefers not to discuss politics. Anyone but Obama in 12.
you might try listening to your reality-based neighbors for a change. even david brooks sees how blind and corrupt his right-wing darlings are. (of course, he will now be branded a traitor …)
No, David Brooks is a manifestation of how “blind and corrupt” the Left is.
David Brooks is paid to pretend to be a conservative so he can be trotted out for occasions just like this. The NYT has been dong this for decades. What do you think, that they would let a real conservative wrte for them?
You are a case in point of just what s being discussed here. You are manipulated by your narrow information resources and those who would use your weaknesses against you. In passing, I woll note that, for once, the GOP is standing up for what is right here. There s absolutely nothing “corrupt” about their stance in the Debt limit matter, nor are they “insane” as Brooks insists. It is Brooks who behaves in these manners and not the GOP on the hill. If you understand how the real would work you know this.
Any truth that comes out of the NYT s completely inadvertent on their part. They are liars.
I’m sorry, I just have to reprint this. It was that good.
The real problem is the “liberal” thinking and how they apply it. Here’s an example: My wife’s best friend is a liberal which causes lots of friction. On the 4th of July we were invited to a barbeque at this lady’s house. Yes, they claim to love America too. However, here were her terms. We could not talk about “politics” as it is insensitive to other people’s feelings. Now, under no circumstances would we ever invite her, or anybody else, over and censor their conversation. Yet, this is exactly what this lady did. My wife was quite shaken by the terms of the invitation; but, I delighted in it. The first thing I did was to go to the store and buy gallons of tea and chicken wings. The tea is self explanatory, but the wings were of different intention. On purpose, I overbought the number of chicken wings. I was going to make hot wings but use only right wings. To my absolute disgust, when I opened the four packages of wings, I found only five right wings. That meant that out of forty wings, only five were right wings. I went ahead with my recipe and cooked all the wings. Then I divided the wings into two containers. The right wings couldn’t be with the left wings because they wouldn’t get along. Up on my arrival at the lady’s house, I presented her with about two gallons of tea and my chicken wings. The tea got the expected giggle from everyone there; however, it was my explanation of the wings that got the real laugh and made its point. The wings came in two containers because they wouldn’t get along. There was only five right wings in one container because of the Great California Left Chicken Wing Conspiracy. Enough said, I made my point.
Just put a Palin-Coulter 2012 bumper sticker on your car and be done with it.
Mine says “Trust Snape”
ETAB wrote: “I don’t agree with your list, in particular, your suggestion that compromise should be accepted.
In science, there is no compromise; there is just hard data. Either the temperature is X or Y; either the earth is flat or a sphere; either AGW is factual or it is not. There is no compromise possible in science.
Equally, in ethics, either you steal or do not steal..and so on.”
Hmmm, how exactly was it that we ended up with a Declaration of Independence or a Constitution? No compromise there,eh?
Here is how I think it works: to get a political absolute truth, you engage in a lot of compromises, but then you let time pass and you say, “we can’t compromise on this because it is the absolute truth!” Obviously the compromises on slavery in the Constitution led to future problems, but without the compromises, there would have been no Founding.
The idea that you have a democratic republic and don’t believe in the principle of compromise is just absurd. The bottom line is that the people who do not compromise are not players. They can caterwaul FOR the players, but they can’t play.
Should we continue on how virtually every decision and law ever made by our government got made, or is that just useless detail to you?
Dwight – do you have a reading comprehension problem? I was talking about science and ethics as objective realities that are grounded in factual data. Factual data is either x or y; the temperature is either 10 or 20. Factual data is – either you stole the car or did not steal the car. There is no compromise about such facts. Therefore, for anyone to suggest that IF you are someone who does not compromise, THEN you are a …ist, is ridiculous. In many areas of life, compromise is irrational.
This has absolutely nothing to do with developing a constitution. And there is no such thing as a ‘political absolute truth’; you sound like a fundamentalist. In realistic, not fundamentalist, political theory there are only political conclusions or decisions and these are arrived at by reason, by logic, by analysis…and they have nothing to do with ‘truth’, which refers to objective reality.
I suggest you save your red herring rants for another issue.
Let’s see; A Physicist gives a list of ten “narrow-minded” traits” , which is a blend of the scientific and political, which includes the inability to compromise as one of those traits.
YOU, ignore the political context of the whole thing and jump to assert the much more the narrow “fact” that you can’t compromise data, essentially proving his and Bugs point that people like you are allergic to even the word “compromise.”
So let’s hear you say it; painful as it is to you, that the process of government and politics is in the end, the process of c-o-m-p-r-o-m-i-s-e.
A Physicist has imbibed too much AGW Koolaid, for sure, but he is pretty solid with this list and his overall point about the positions and tendencies of the extreme righties and lefties.
Basic underlying problem with the AGW stuff is the fuzzy and smoothed nature of the data, the fact that when push comes to shove, a huge majority cares more about jobs than CO2, and the simple human fact that we are not going to stop burning carbon, until we run out of it. We have about as much chance of burning less carbon as the government has of actually spending less money.
Dwight, I won’t disagree with your post … its points were very much Eisenhower-style (maybe that the origin of your handle “Dwight”?) whose administration was the kind of presidency I admire.
With regard to the scientific reality of AGW … as contrasted with our regrettably technical and political capabilities … scientists are increasingly going on-record with concrete *predictions* … such predictions are a gold-standard test of scientific consensus, commitment, and quality.
As of today, for example nineteen-out-of-nineteen scientific groups are predicting … yet another record or near-record year of Arctic sea ice melt.
Is AGW real? The scientific answer is solidly “yes”.
Can we do anything about it? The answer is much less clear. It is doubtful that prayers or appeals to market forces will have much efficacy … and this makes folks who repose their trust in prayers and markets very angry indeed.
Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate
URL: http://nsidc.org/icelights/
I have tried to tell people here for several years (and as a few have already acknowledged in this thread) that there is obviously general warming in North America, because every glacier I have visited has been in unreversed decline for some time. But proving that it is CO2 related is quite something else. The science of how CO2 affects warming either in conjunction with (or counter to) the effects of sunspot cycles, earth-axis shifts, El Ninos, La Ninas, fluorocarbons, sulphur, phenomenon unknown to us etc seems to have more variables than the beleeevers can truly adjust for. Sea levels have NOT risen as predicted. On the other hand, a lot of the deniers are so strident (and contradictory to each other; some deny ANY warming) that I can rarely listen to one of them without an argument ensuing.
The more practical question of how we should price, tax, and consume our carbon non renewables in order to prolong its useful life to us is beyond my pay grade, but the oil companies seem to be doing ok.
My advice?
Leave San Francisco as soon as you possibly can. It’s bad for one’s mental, physical (the air is crappy), emotional, spiritual, and financial health.
Advice for Conservatives:
It is just better to steer very clear of political discussions with liberal family members if you want a relationship. My liberal uncle and I got in a heated discussion one day and we apologized to each other and it was all good, but I haven’t heard from him for over six months which is very unusual. He is very liberal and my aunt (his wife) started studying to become a Sufi Muslim. I mean gees, of the religions to embrace as an American these days! I really have a hard time with that one. They are the prototype “blame America first,” AGW alarmist, and every other liberal stance. Hell, as I write maybe it’s just better to write them off, but they are painfully nice and thoughtful people in all other respects. They are trapped in the sixties, but it is very difficult to excuse their belief system which has totally screwed up California where I live.
As far as friends go, just make new friends. Conservatives and liberals are just too different to get along.
I’ve searched this article and comments for David Mamet, and his name is not present at this time.
He, and his book, illustrate the most current, rational methodology used to approach “non-conservatives”.
If his methodology and history don’t do the job, nothing will.
Some things are NOT thicker than blood, like trying to teach Christianity in Iran. (Or even some places in America).
Mamet’s book is simply brilliant. Quite likely it will be read ONLY by conservatives and those of us conservatives who used to be rabid lefties. Lefties now won’t let any light into their caves whatsoever.
Peg C:
“…….those of us conservatives who used to be rabid lefties.”
I was reared by “rabid lefties” but, fortunately, realized my errors once I started my own business. (I was even a religious NPR devotee).
What was your story?
You know, I have tried and tried to reach out to liberals on blogs like “Newsvine” and others and I just cannot seem to understand 80% of them. As a human being, I am man enough to admit if I am wrong on a situation BUT A LIBERAL, NEVER will they EVER admit they are wrong. The Liberal Progressive is all about power over the masses. They offer NOTHING to society other than stealing and spending OTHER people’s wealth. They believe they are the enlighten enablers of life.
There is no hope for the narcissistic left. Liberal freedom can be defined in three ways, endless abortion, telling others what they can do and not do and their almost obsessive behavior about homosexual sex. Other than that, they are pure fascist wanting to implement their will on others through whatever means necessary. I have also noticed their ability to compulsively lie!
I’m a guns and religion-clinging, slurpee-drinking, pea-eating conservative who happens to work in the entertainment industry.
I think it would be folly for me to follow the advice in this column. I think I’d become nearly unemployable.
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” has been my best policy. Meaning, I never ask a colleague what his or her politics are; I never reveal my own; and I keep my job and professional relationships.
It’s sad, but it’s harder to come out of the closet as a conservative than as a gay communist necrophiliac serial killer.
I think if you read the question and the answer one more time you’ll see that the column is intended for social situations, not the workplace. I can’t speak for Belladonna but it looks to me as if she’d agree with you when it comes to the workplace. She doesn’t seem like a person who would want to see one more American added to the country’s already 9.2% unemployment.
Actually, Nim, although my post was a bit opaque, that was the point I was trying to make; i.e., that although Belladonna’s advice may be good for social settings, I didn’t think it would apply very well to the work setting. It would be very interesting to know her take on that question.
JPL17, I’m glad you raised this question. And Mr. Goldberg, you correctly stated my position. This column was, indeed, intended to apply to social gatherings and not to the workplace. When at your place of employment, unless it’s at the Republican National Committee, the Democratic National Committee or anything of sort—like a political campaign—my advice is not to talk politics. Not at the water cooler, not anywhere in the workplace. If a social situation includes colleagues from your workplace or industry, the workplace rule of not discussing your politics would supersede the social gathering rule.
Thank you for asking a terrific question on a point that needed clarification.
I just returned from a trip to upstate NY. Reunited with very old friends one of which is more liberal than I could have ever imagined. A casual discussion over dinner turned him in to a rabid Obama supporting zombie. There is no way to have a discussion with a prog lib. It is like trying to make sense of a conversation with someone who just happens to be insane.
So was the issue more that you wouldn’t acknowledge that Obama could do ANYTHING right, or that he could acknowledge that Obama could do anything wrong?
er, “that he could NOT acknowledge that Obama could do anything wrong?”
Upstate NY (meaning ‘north of the Catskills’) is surprisingly red. The exception is, of course, in the cities (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany).
You may (or may not) be surprised how many conservatives there are around Rochester. In fact, the Mayor of Rochester is almost always a Democrat. The Monroe County Supervisor is almost always a right-of-center Republican.
Sorry for the seemingly pointless post, BuffaloBob, but I still do a double-take when I see a conservative that identifies themselves as a New Yorker.
I ain’t askin nobody for nothin
if I can’t get it on my own.
You don’t like the way I’m livin
you just leave this long-haired country boy alone.
Matt. “On the nazis”. How do You explain the Molotov Ribbintrop (sp) agreement and the fact that the left in the U.S. was ok. with that pact. Was the left somewhat right at the time? Make some sense. Read Jonah Goldberg”s Liberal Fascism.
Many years ago, when working in a friends home, her friend, a loud-mouthed, ill informed liberal would start spouting her diatribes against anyone and anything conservative. Naturally, as one who enjoys poking the hornets nest, I would provoke her into even more liberal politispeak. Later on, my friend asked me what I was doing. I explained that I was provoking her friend because of the uninformed comments and lack of truthful facts when she embarked on one of her rants.
My friend was very upset with me, asked me to leave her home when the work was finished and she never called me again. What I later realized after coming into some revealing information was that my friend had come under the influence of another prominent liberal, the wife of a surgeon, and had successfully indoctrinated her into the liberal life of lies and misinformation based solely on emotional responses to any and every subject under the sun.
A sad commentary but it is revealing and good to know that most liberals do not actually understand the world – until you ask and expect them to do what they are asking, no, demanding, that you do what they want. Ask one of them to give up their expensive home or car in order to better serve the poor and homeless and all you get is a blank look, clueless.
After working in the homes of many liberals, one comes to an understanding that it is really a world of “do as I say, not as I do”. You never see an old, worn out tires, broken windshield vehicle at a liberal gathering where they are discussing the plight of the poor.
That’s b*llsh*t.
My wife and I are foster-care parents … and I’ll tell you what you never see in the foster-care community …
What you never see is ideology-first people—equally on the left and on the right—because these groups of people simply don’t volunteer for the tough realities of foster care duty.
What you see instead is ideological far-righties and ideological far-lefties behaving *exactly* alike … both groups putting their precious ideology first … ahead of the practical needs of the kids.
It turns out that ideology-first folks just can’t handle the real-world challenges that foster kids present.
“The kids? You can’t handle the kids”, as Jack Nicholson might say it.
Well, I guess we have to give Michelle Bachman high marks in this area.
Ms. Bachman very definitely *does* get high marks for foster care! And John McCain does too!
The ultimate irony escapes another typical clueless liberal. You call yourself “physicist” as if that would give you a grain of credibility. Well you miss the whole point of being an ideological conservative which is no different from being a conservative. Ideology is what this is all about.
Conservative ideology values the family above all else. In order to care for that family conservatives believe you need to provide and care for your home. Our home is the USA we believe in protecting it and making sure it stays strong so our families have a good place to live and grow.
Conservatives, in valuing the family, believe goal of that family is to produce children that will be an asset to our home, the USA. Raising good children is difficult in the extreme so you need a minimum configuration that will help reach that goal. You need a mother, a father and a behavioral code to serve as strong role models that will produce good offspring that will are assets to our society instead of a drag.
The primary behavioral code for conservatives is their Judeo-Christian values. Some conservatives are more religious than others, but all believe they are a time honored model for moral behavior that never goes out of style. They have no problem with god in the public square.
I could go on but the main point here is that if everybody was conservative and lived by conservative values; there wouldn’t be any foster kids because conservatives take care of their kids.
I have to agree, particularly, with #5. Born in the “People’s Republic of Cambridge (MA)”, and having been a “Dyed in the wool” Demonrat, for many years, I finally realized, that reading “Brain-Washing” material, that “Just keep your eyes closed, you’r doing fine”, drinking the Kewl – Aid of stupidity, and being a “Sheeple”, didn’t seem to be working too well, because our “System of Democracy”, isn’t supposed to be that. Our system, here in the U.S.A., is a Republic. We follow the Law and not the man. Abrogating our Rules & Laws, such as our Nitwit-In – Chief is doing, is exactly what is going to destroy our county. We will become a “Third World Democracy”, which will be like all others. Our system works, because we don’t do as all the other little fiefdoms do … I have a hard time understanding what it is that Liberals think is such a great way of life, when all these other “Democracies” are going down the tubes. Why, if they are so happy with a miserable existence, do they not just go to some other country, instead of trying to destroy our way of life??
LOL … Intrepid68OR, yer whining post sounds just like the far-left liberals who so similarly whine: “We must not abandon our beautiful America, that the conservatives have so nearly destroyed?”
The folks at The Onion have captured this whining viewpoint perfectly. That’s why it’s plain common-sense for Americans to oppose (equally) ideology-first slogan-shouting far-***ie politicians of every description.
Bush: ‘Our Long National Nightmare of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over’
URL: http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros,464/
I converted my liberal wife to the conservative side. It took several years, but the real change was when BHO was elected. She saw the problems with his ideas and found them to be illogical for continued existance as a country. The democrat liberal leaders s of times gone by – JFK, LBJ, Truman, Wilson, – would be considered wacko conservatives by todays democrats.
Fortunate Son asserts:
Another b*llsh*t claim … and also, a contemptible evasion of moral responsibility (Matthew 7:3).
(1) Not even the most ardently fundamentalist Southern Baptist minister believes that his/her congregation will “live by conservative values” — this *never* happens … as every minister, rabbi, and priest appreciates full well.
(2) Kids in need of foster care exist, in similar numbers, in every state — red and blue equally. Arguing that “these kids shouldn’t exist” is pure moral cowardice.
(3) Family-devastating mental illnesses (like schizophrenia) strike the devout and the sinful alike with equal frequency.
My wife and I well remember our first training session. The leader asked “How many of you believe that your foster child will quickly come to love you?” A few brave souls raised their hands. The leader regarded them soberly and said “Most of you will be disappointed.”
Like most things worth doing … and worth doing well … the daily reality of foster care is not for the uncommitted, the morally ambiguous, the holier-than-thou folks, or the faint-hearted. Yet if thee “Cast thy bread upon these waters, thou shalt find it after many days … As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.”
Those who care for these kids receive from these same kids a living lesson in “the works of God” that whose who sit at home and condemn shall never be blessed learn, and shall never understand.
Great article and discussion. It’s timely for me, because just yesterday an email exchange ended with a liberal friend of mine. He’s otherwise a smart guy, but he just got so worked up that he wasn’t even coherent anymore. To paraphrase it went something like this: I said it’s kind of perplexing that Obama, an unknown person, with questionable origins, questionable associations, and no accomplishments or experience gets elected president of the United States. (OK, maybe I was purposely yanking his chain, and a little too hard, but..) And he said “George Bush Sarah Palin, Jesus isn’t a Republican” He said “read a book” And I thought, how arrogant, just because I don’t see things the way he does, I must be ignorant. After ranting like that, he sent another email and said “End of discussion” He called that a discussion. Weird huh?
Your email exchange seems to fall in the same category as “If you lend a friend $20 and never hear from them again, it was a good investment.”
Yeah, pretty much. Chopping wood this morning I remembered how the liberals where I used to work would get all apoplectic arguing about stuff. They would try to provoke me, and I just wouldn’t take the bait. One asked me, “Do you believe in the death penalty?” I thought about it for a sec, and answered, “Not for the unborn.” You could smell his brain short-circuiting from across the room.
Are we supposed to be able to tell from the way you framed this, who was actually the most incoherent in your exchange? Beats the hell out of me.
What would popular media be without a new iteration of ‘Miss Manners/Emily Post’. This position always reminds me of a single child growing up, listening to mom and dad argue in the living room, and wondering why we can’t just get along? These people grow up seeing a dichotomous world and become the smartest person in the room by inventing a third ‘way’. This is Hegelian at the core, and explains most Libertarians to me, but the historical fact is that we don’t move beyond some differences until after the battle. The struggle is between two narratives, one says private property is sacred, taking it is theft. The other says nothing belongs to anyone, you have too much, give it to me. There must be a struggle/conflict. In that struggle, once engaged, there isn’t really a place for ‘Miss Manners’. If we don’t realize this now with these leftists, there are some Islamists that would love to give lessons in manners, you won’t like it.
LOL … Gallifet, it’s interesting to consider whether our American nation ever could have been born, had your style of my-way-or-the-highway absolutists been running America’s Constitutional Convention!
As the concluding issue of The Federalist (#84) put it:
But heck, what did Madison, Hamilton, and Jay know, with all their talk of amity and compromise?
Gallifet, no one doubts your absolute certainty that *you* could have done better … but perhaps there is room for doubt whether your conviction is justified.
Pound sand, insert smiley face. Or if you prefer, insert smiley face, pound sand. No Miss Manners Gallifet.
Righties tend to talk more about shooting lefties, or shooting period, than lefties talk about either. Lefties tend to use more bad words like f*ck…..and taxes. So it goes.
What would De Tocqueville say?
I only ever got shot at once ridgerunner and i did not like it very much. I cant imagine deliberately taking a job where that was a reasonably likely thing to happen. I mean I can imagine it but I can’t doing anything but running away as fast as possible and quitting right away, by mail, if it ever happened.
i forgot the ‘hats off to you’ part of the comment ridgerunner.
Dollarbill has it right, and Margaret is a great example of what the article was all about in the first place. Where comes this permission for liberal Democrats to diss conservatives, nastily, and get annoyed at the same response to them from the right? I think it is the liberals (how the word has morphed from its noble origins!!!) who are at the root of the divisiveness that wracks the country now. [Except, Dollarbill, it should be lose and not loose. My brother does the same thing. But he is a looser.]
Excellent website. Plenty of useful information here. I?m sending it to several pals ans additionally sharing in delicious. And certainly, thank you for your effort!
excellent points altogether, you just gained a emblem new reader. What may you recommend in regards to your submit that you simply made a few days ago? Any sure?
Thank you, I have recently been looking for info about this subject for a while and yours is the greatest I have found out till now. However, what in regards to the bottom line? Are you positive in regards to the supply?|What i don’t realize is if truth be told how you are no longer really a lot more well-preferred than you might be right now. You’re so intelligent.
Magnificent beat ! I wish to apprentice whilst you amend your site, how could i subscribe for a weblog web site? The account helped me a acceptable deal. I have been a little bit familiar of this your broadcast provided brilliant clear concept
Thank you a bunch for sharing this with all of us you actually recognise what you’re talking about! Bookmarked. Kindly additionally consult with my website =). We could have a hyperlink alternate contract among us
I am no longer sure where you are getting your info, however great topic. I must spend a while learning much more or understanding more. Thank you for wonderful information I used to be on the lookout for this info for my mission.
Helpful info. Lucky me I discovered your web site unintentionally, and I am shocked why this twist of fate did not came about earlier! I bookmarked it.
hey there and thank you for your info ? I’ve definitely picked up anything new from right here. I did however expertise some technical issues using this website, as I skilled to reload the site many times previous to I may just get it to load properly. I were brooding about if your web hosting is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but sluggish loading instances occasions will very frequently have an effect on your placement in google and could damage your quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I am including this RSS to my email and could look out for much more of your respective intriguing content. Make sure you replace this once more soon..
hello!,I really like your writing very so much! proportion we communicate extra approximately your post on AOL? I need a specialist on this space to resolve my problem. Maybe that’s you! Having a look forward to peer you.
Excellent beat ! I would like to apprentice whilst you amend your web site, how could i subscribe for a blog website? The account aided me a appropriate deal. I had been tiny bit familiar of this your broadcast offered bright clear concept
You recognize thus significantly when it comes to this subject, produced me individually imagine it from so many varied angles. Its like men and women are not fascinated except it’s one thing to accomplish with Woman gaga! Your individual stuffs outstanding. All the time care for it up!
Magnificent goods from you, man. I have take note your stuff previous to and you’re simply too great. I actually like what you’ve obtained here, certainly like what you are stating and the way through which you are saying it. You’re making it entertaining and you still care for to stay it smart. I can not wait to learn far more from you. This is really a wonderful web site.
I have fun with, cause I found exactly what I was looking for. You have ended my four day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye
I am really inspired together with your writing talents and also with the layout on your blog. Is that this a paid subject or did you modify it yourself? Anyway stay up the nice quality writing, it is uncommon to peer a great weblog like this one today..
Undeniably imagine that which you stated. Your favourite reason seemed to be at the web the simplest factor to take into account of. I say to you, I definitely get irked while other people consider issues that they plainly do not understand about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the top and outlined out the whole thing without having side effect , other people could take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thank you
My brother suggested I may like this blog. He was once entirely right. This submit actually made my day. You can not believe simply how a lot time I had spent for this information! Thanks!