Understanding Leftists

[YardleyLabs]

Ahhh Julie:

Liberal Bizarre: Equating aborting a third term viable fetus with applying the death penalty to some deserving psychopath.

Conservative Bizarre: Equating aborting a first or second trimester, non-viable fetus with aborting a third term viable fetus or with murder of an otherwise innocent and healthy child or adult.

Liberal bizarre: Let's allow ALL abortions even 3rd trimester, let's fund them abroad too. But let us NEVER use the death penalty even for murdering pedophiles and serial killers.

I actually don't know any pro-choice advocates who suggest allowing unrestricted third term abortions of viable fetuses either here or abroad. I think that qualifies as a red herring. The death penalty is a separate issue. From a personal perspective, my only concern with the death penalty is what is does to us as people, not what it does to the criminals (assuming of course that they are actually guilty, which we know is not always true).

Liberal Bizarre: Rarely considering the law of unintended consequences as it relates to their view of environmental issues ...

Conservative Bizarre: Rarely considering the law of unintended consequences as it relates to corporate behavior in polluting our environment or introducing new and virtually untested additives into our food supply with no consideration of long term consequences.

Liberal bizarre: Let's pass a stimulus package that places more importance on mice than jobs. Let's staff the new cabinet with tax cheats and scofflaws. Let's have an accountable government starting with a $400= million inaugggeration and push through a trillion dollar package of pork before anyone has time to read it. Let's not worry about the law of unintended consequences!

Can't you at least make a pretense of relating your comments to the ones in the post?

Liberal Bizarre: Proclaiming to be advocates of environmental issues yet rarely do their lifestyles differ appreciably, as it relates to conservation, from those they advocate against.

Conservative Bizarre: Claiming to be Christian while rejecting the most fundamental, and still radical, Christian concepts of charity, justice and compassion.

Liberal Bizarre: Let's claim Christian values especially if we're not.

If you're talking about me, my values are almost entirely Judeo-Christian in origin. Like Milton Friedman, as I noted n another thread, I view those values as having grown out of the totality of human evolution. Their validity does not depend on whether or not they were defined by God.

Liberal Bizarre: They claim to be advocates of free speech, yet go to virtually any college campus and any invitee brought there to speak about an issue that isn’t in line with the left wing world view is shouted down and isn’t allowed to speak.

Conservative Bizarre: Not even pretending to support free speech when the opinions are contrary and particularly opposing free speech of liberal professors in colleges.

Liberal bizarre: Let's call everyone that disagrees with the president a racist. Let's have our attorney general teach us about racial equality by calling us a "Nation of Cowards" while ignoring the fact that blacks are the most racist group in America. Let's depend on college professors and 'community activists' to determine what's best for educating our kids and running our country.

Who have I called a racist? I think the Atty Gen is right. I believe your comments on blacks are ridiculous. If you think they're accurate, please start a thread with your evidence and we can have a discussion. I'll have to respectfully disagree with your last suggestion. I'd rather trust my kids with their own education and the electorate to help decide who will run our country.

Liberal Bizarre: Claiming the first amendment means everyone, yet the second amendment doesn’t.

Conservative Bizarre: Claiming the second amendment means everyone under all circumstances, but the first, fourth, fifth, fourteenth, etc., amendments should only apply when convenient.

Liberal Bizarre: Claiming the Constitution is a living document, whatever that means, and isn’t to be taken literally.

Liberal Bizarre: Let's actually change the Constitution so it more reflects what we want and deserve.

Actually, the Constitution makes specific provisions for how it can be modified. That's how we got the 14th amendment ending slavery and establishing equality under the law, and the 18th amendment giving women the vote among others.

Conservative Bizarre: Claiming that the second amendment only includes the second half of a two-part sentence, or that the Constitution was somehow intended to protect the unborn, or that the Supreme Court's decision in overruling the Florida Supreme Court in 2000 was in some manner a fair and literal reading of the Constitution.

Liberal Bizarre: Let's claim the Constitution guarantees everyone a right to a $400,000 house, free medical care, loans whether or not you can pay them back, tax rebates even if you've never paid a dime into the system, an expensive car, rims, 40s, flat screen TVs and forgiveness of all past crimes unless you are a conservative taxpayer.

Who suggested any of these were Constitutional issues? In fact, who has suggested all of these "policies" in any context?

[subroc]

I don’t think I overstated the left position at all. I actually think it is a bit understated if anything. The positions I stated are clearly mainstream left thought, not extreme or radical. If I had stated the extreme or radical positions, your claim of overstatement may have been valid.

Conservative Bizarre: Claiming to be Christian while rejecting the most fundamental, and still radical, Christian concepts of charity, justice and compassion.

??????? Could you explain this one?

Conservative Bizarre: Claiming that the second amendment only includes the second half of a two-part sentence…

Not only do we not believe that, we require a reading of it in its entirety. We believe it should be taken in context and taken in the meaning of the day. The left, on the other hand is guilty of parsing it in an attempt to find a meaning in it interpreted in by those that want to disarm the population.

Conservative Bizarre: Not even pretending to support free speech when the opinions are contrary and particularly opposing free speech of liberal professors in colleges…

Untrue. The right fully supports the left wing ideological professors spouting their left wing venom but not at the expense of the open and free exchange of ideas. We reject indoctrination by those professors. We want professors that are capable of understanding the difference between advocating a position and indoctrinating young minds without the presentation of any opposing positions,

[Julie R.]

Jeff, my post was very much tongue in cheek, not aimed at you personally (woke up with a dose of Obomo narcissim this morning? ) the religious jab was about Obomo's muzzie connections and how he's courting Hamas. I'm way too lazy to go dig up facts. Check back with me in a few months about the law of unintended consequences vis a vis the stimulus package.

As far as the racist angle, it wasn't directed at you; I haven't heard you call anyone that dislikes Obomo racist. But let's not pretend that the race card hasn't been played regularly both before and after the election. I found it amusing Holder felt he needed to denounce 'a nation of cowards' about race relations because blacks in general are more racist than whites but everyone is afraid to say it in public. You can drum up more stats to try and prove me wrong, but for this purpose I'm using the fact Obomo won almost 100 percent of the black vote

As for guaranteed rights to own a home, car, take on debt you can't afford, etc. isnt' that what this bailout is about? It may not be a Constitutional right but this administration sure is acting like it is. Settle down there big guy, this ain't personal about you unless you're about to take a Cabinet position...

[Gerry Clinchy]

In fact, I tend to think that both the original "liberal" perspectives and my countering "conservative" perspectives are over-stated and do a disservice to thoughtful people from both camps.

I surely agree with Jeff in this.

I really believe that most "liberals" and "conservatives", if they were to admit it to reflect on it, are really a mix depending on the issues.

I do think that third term abortions cross the line, but I have mixed emotions about early term abortions (though we must take into account medical advances that have been made over time WRT to fetus viabiity). I have no problem at all with birth control which prevents conception. This is neither totally in a a "conservative" camp, nor totally "liberal".

By the same token, any President will act in ways that look really bad in retrospect; or that may look better in retrospect than they did at the time of the action.

I am constantly amazed at how wrong things can go for a President even with the best of intentions. Carter was intelligent and had very good intentions, and, I believe, integrity, but that didn't necessarily lead to a fruitful presidency. Clinton was an individual lacking in integrity, yet one can point to some positive things that his administration accomplished (much as I am offended by his blatant dishonesty). Timing did help Clinton out a bit. Reagan was a good man and charismatic, but he also was not infallible in his decisions and was helped by the timing factor.

While I agree with Friedman that free enterprise is the best hope for improving economic well-being, I also expect industry not to be allowed to endanger lives dumping toxic waste where it shouldn't be dumped.

There are many intelligent people on this list. I doubt that any of them lack compassion. Compassion is at the root of charity: helping those less well off. That then became the root of government welfare. But I doubt that any of the compassionate individuals here would agree with welfare being made into a way of life for multiple generations.

I just don't really believe that any of the "liberals" on this list are totally liberal in all their beliefs; nor are the "conservatives" totally ultra-conservative on every issue. Politicians try to make us believe we are They foster this devisiveness to get their votes. It's easier for them to address emotions than intelligent thought this way. Perhaps it's time to say, "shame on us" for falling for their bait?

[Steve]

I am a liberal. I've never made any pretense otherwise.

A liberal used to mean someone who was for individual rights and limited government. Nowadays liberalism has morphed into selective rights for certain people and large government intervention.

I am an unapologetic advocate of free market capitalism. Politically, I am a Libertarian with conservative leanings (mostly military/foreign policy). I do not make irrational arguments.

My biggest problem with the divisiveness that we have seen eating at our country is that it has placed ideology before reason.

We can't even agree on the facts, there is no way we are going ever agree on policy.

The biggest difference is that the policies that I advocate do not force any action upon you other than to not violate individuals' rights. What the left advocates requires my participation whether I like it or not.

By the way, you gve three examples of "liberal" arguments that cannot be objectively proven. I believe that I presented some pretty convincing facts demonstrating that since 1979 "the rich have gotten richer". Of the three you mention, that is the only one that I have personally asserted.

First you have to define "rich". I guess "richer" could mean 1 penny more. I got run - Bearcats vs. Louisville. I'll post more later. I know you can yardly, err hardly wait.

[YardleyLabs]

A liberal used to mean someone who was for individual rights and limited government. Nowadays liberalism has morphed into selective rights for certain people and large government intervention.

I assume you're talking about the liberal programs to tap calls without warrants, search library records, and make it illegal to even disclose if you have been investigated in this manner? Or was it the liberal programs to incur a $5 trillion deficit in eight years (hard to think of a governmental intervention bigger than that).

I am an unapologetic advocate of free market capitalism. Politically, I am a Libertarian with conservative leanings (mostly military/foreign policy). I do not make irrational arguments.

If by "free market" you mean competitive, I would agree, but if you mean government support for efforts to limit competition (e.g. massive expansion of IP rights, outlawing cross border drug pharmaceutical purchases, outlawing competitive price negotiations for drugs purchased under Medicare, etc.) I think corporate welfare would be a better description. With respect to "irrational arguments, I think your entire post at the beginning of this thread would qualify along the second sentence of this post.

We can't even agree on the facts, there is no way we are going ever agree on policy.

It's hard to agree or disagree with your facts. You haven't mentioned any yet.

The biggest difference is that the policies that I advocate do not force any action upon you other than to not violate individuals' rights. What the left advocates requires my participation whether I like it or not.

It's hard to respond to this without some examples on both sides. The deficits incurred by Bush will certainly affect me and my children and my grandchildren for many years to come. The Patriot Act also affects me and mine in addition to having a name that should appear in the dictionary as an example of supreme irony.

First you have to define "rich". I guess "richer" could mean 1 penny more. I got run - Bearcats vs. Louisville. I'll post more later. I know you can yardly, err hardly wait.

Well, the example I used was with the top 1% of wage earners with average increases in income of more than 200% while incomes for the lower 80% went up 15% and incomes for the lower 40% went up 5%. Statistics are less readily available for higher income groupings but appear to indicate that the higher you go the bigger the discrepancy.

[Uncle Bill]

Well, the example I used was with the top 1% of wage earners with average increases in income of more than 200% while incomes for the lower 80% went up 15% and incomes for the lower 40% went up 5%. Statistics are less readily available for higher income groupings but appear to indicate that the higher you go the bigger the discrepancy.
__________________
Jeff Goodwin
http://jeffgoodwin.com

And your whining about this because? Did you have your taxes increased MORE than those upper wage earners? Did those upper wage earners (at least you have the sense to include the word 'earner') get their income by taking it away from the lower class...as is what's happening now?

As Dennis Miller said recently...I'm in favor of helping the helpless, but the clueless can take a hike.

Which category do you fall in, Jeff, so I know how to address you? Should we be sending out the welcome wagon? Or should we just consider you as being a clueless whining liberal, awaiting your governmental handouts?

You won't want to hear this, since I have no "factual evidence" to prove it, but based on what I know, both Algore and the current #2 make more in annual income than I do, but I have given more to charity than both those yahoos combined.

Some day the 'facts' of how much you and your leftist group are willing to tax your grandchildren, and their unborn children as well, will drop you to your knees. By that time of course, Atlas will have shrugged, and all your king's men will be left wondering how to make anything work again.

But then, since a picture is worth a thousand words, your position is guaranteed. The nation will always need you 'documenters' eh? Hope you can get into that upper 1%. All the others will be needing your handouts.

UB

[YardleyLabs]

Well, the example I used was with the top 1% of wage earners with average increases in income of more than 200% while incomes for the lower 80% went up 15% and incomes for the lower 40% went up 5%. Statistics are less readily available for higher income groupings but appear to indicate that the higher you go the bigger the discrepancy.
__________________
Jeff Goodwin
http://jeffgoodwin.com

And your whining about this because? Did you have your taxes increased MORE than those upper wage earners? Did those upper wage earners (at least you have the sense to include the word 'earner') get their income by taking it away from the lower class...as is what's happening now?

As Dennis Miller said recently...I'm in favor of helping the helpless, but the clueless can take a hike.

Which category do you fall in, Jeff, so I know how to address you? Should we be sending out the welcome wagon? Or should we just consider you as being a clueless whining liberal, awaiting your governmental handouts?

You won't want to hear this, since I have no "factual evidence" to prove it, but based on what I know, both Algore and the current #2 make more in annual income than I do, but I have given more to charity than both those yahoos combined.

Some day the 'facts' of how much you and your leftist group are willing to tax your grandchildren, and their unborn children as well, will drop you to your knees. By that time of course, Atlas will have shrugged, and all your king's men will be left wondering how to make anything work again.

But then, since a picture is worth a thousand words, your position is guaranteed. The nation will always need you 'documenters' eh? Hope you can get into that upper 1%. All the others will be needing your handouts.

UB

You are welcome to believe anything that makes you feel better about me, my income, and my charitable contributions. You are very quick to make assumptions about things of which you know nothing. Check the facts. The overwhelming bulk of all budget deficits incurred by the Federal government since 1964 have been incurred under Republican administrations. The worst "culprits" have been Reagan and Bush II. Those "facts" come from the Heritage Foundation as well as the government.

My "career" as a photographer followed my career as a general partner at Ernst & Young, an officer of a major national engineering firm, and my career as President and owner of an IT consulting firm.

With respect to charitable contributions by Gore and Biden, I certainly hope you do better than Joe, who gives almost nothing. Gore's record may be trickier. He seems historically to have given little from his normal income. However, when he and Tipper have had extra income, they have been very generous. They gave $50,000 to UT in memory of Al Gore Sr. They also contributed all of the proceeds from Tipper's book and Gore's book to charity ($50-100,000 each). Since leaving public office, Gore's contributions are no longer a matter of public record. However, he did give 100% of the proceeds from his Nobel Peace Prize ($750,000) to charity as well as 100% of his income as head of a non-profit. For good measure, the Clinton's have given $10 million to charity since leaving the White House (not counting the $$$ "given" to Hilary's campaign.

[Patrick Johndrow]

As far as the racist angle, it wasn't directed at you; I haven't heard you call anyone that dislikes Obomo racist.

I have resigned myself to the fact that in this administration I am going to be a racist…it can’t be helped in today environment. Unless you are drinking the from the liberal water trough you are a racist.

[zeus3925]

I have resigned myself to the fact that in this administration I am going to be a racist…it can’t be helped in today environment. Unless you are drinking the from the liberal water trough you are a racist.

Ok, Pat. What is the source for your remarks or is it just opinion?