The Seductive Temptress

The modern political persuasion called Liberalism can be compared to a beautiful seductive temptress. Alluring and destined to feel good for a while but after a fling with this wily ideology one is left realizing that the intoxicating goddess was more like a cheap prostitute. This seducer of the mind and soul leaves one intellectually and spiritually bankrupt, and infected with a life long hatred of tradition, morals and values.

The Liberal or Progressive ideology is definitely a feel good political philosophy. As the Bible so wisely warns us to resist the temptations of the flesh so must we resist the emotional temptation and seduction of modern Liberalism.

Liberalism is full of great sounding ideas such as inclusion, acceptance, dignity, equality, social justice, human rights, and diversity. It seduces the naive and the idealist with its promise of compassion and tolerance. Who doesn’t want peace, harmony and justice? Who doesn’t want to feed the hungry and house the homeless? Such simple sentiments stir the hearts of the masses. It is a slippery slope philosophy that sucks one in with statements that are hard to disagree with but the utopian dreams lead to social engineering, the nanny state and the abandonment of common sense.

Its taint touches every issue. It begins with calls for responsible pet ownership but soon leads to an animal bill of rights, pet guardianship and the picketing of KFC. Legitimate condemnation of brutal attacks based on hatred leads to homosexual high schools, same sex marriage, and gays in the military. Sympathy for the plight of migrant workers somehow compels us to accept and support the millions of illegal immigrants filling our schools, hospitals and prisons and the accompanying multi-billion dollar tax burden. The call for celebration of other cultures is revealed to be a mere mask fueling the fires of racial and class divisions. This dismantling of Western civilization continues unabated under the guise and tutelage of smiling bureaucrats.

Far too many people inclined to the conservative cause have been lured into compromise and eventual abandonment of their creed by the sirens song. It is a trap too easily sprung upon the unwary, uneducated and even the occasional weary veteran of the culture wars. Overwhelming in its pervasiveness and unending in its preaching it is a difficult ideology to stand against. For those in politics or the public eye it becomes even more difficult. Principle is abandoned for practicality. Cooperation becomes compromise. Public relations become political correctness. And the path of least resistance leads to surrender.

There is no doubt that behind the appealing bumper sticker slogans and picture perfect ideals there is a sinister agenda of massive government regulation and control of our daily lives. It is an agenda that shreds the moral fabric of society. One that seeks to destroy nationalism and sovereignty, promote internationalism and globalism, and carry out its own jihad on tradition, authority, respect and all things Christian. Its idea of acceptance leads to perversion, compassion to idiocy, inclusion to self-destruction. The shrill cry of tolerance, tolerance! no matter what the cost or how absurd it may be is the mating call of this ideological temptress. It demands the complete suspension of judgment with no regard for consequences or the damage caused to society.

The ultimate goal seems to be some Frankenstein cross between the state of California and the modern day public university. The enshrinement of the immoral, uncontrolled immigration and massive government giveaways of California combined with the speech codes, white guilt, political correctness, and ideological intolerance of college campuses. A frightening vision to say the least but one that is being successfully foisted upon the American people and wholeheartedly adopted by the elite of media, education, entertainment and popular culture. The seductress has been successful in her conquests but the ugliness that lies behind the mask of compassion is slowly being revealed.

We have seen the daily attacks upon the Boy Scouts, the Ten Commandments, the pledge of allegiance and heterosexual marriage. The institutions, symbols, and traditions that have been the heart of the American culture and society are under constant assault as they are dismantled one by one.

Environmentalism, humanism, feminism, anti-capitalism, multiculturalism and all the allied isms of the Left are among the greatest threats to the Republic since secession tore it apart in a bloody civil war. These ideologies are perhaps even more insidious for they seek not to separate themselves from the rest of us but seek to conquer us. Not just physically but emotionally, mentally, culturally and spiritually as well.

The Liberal ideologies that seek to destroy the dream and vision of the Founding Fathers deserve to be ruthlessly fought, exposed and defied at every opportunity. Beneath the thin veneer of civility lies an iron fisted philosophy that wages an unending war on all that is good, holy and moral. It is a topsy turvy view of the world where wrong is right, God is mocked, perversion is normal, infanticide is liberation and the profane is praised. They have had their chance to shape our culture. The results have been disastrous with the American family paying the price. There is still a glimmer of hope if the lies of the Left are exposed for what they really are and the American people choose to flee from the lair of the temptress.

Posted by David M. Huntwork at June 12, 2007 10:34 PM
Comments
Comment #223034

Uh…ahem…

How silly can you get?

Let’s talk about the WHORE (I mean that quite literally) called “Neo-Conservatism.” I use that term because it is incorrect to use the term CONSERVATIVE to describe those who don’t conserving ANUYTHING - not life, not liberty, not law, not economic well being, not jobs, not health, etc. etc.

This WHORE convinces her adherents that she is about things like: Free-market (a LIE), economic vibrancy and velocity of money (Not only a LIE but also only applicable to those who KNOW it to be a lie), “American Values” (…have you been paying attention?)…and so on.

You claim “attacks” on boy scouts? There is evidence out there of racist bigotry in the boy-scouts. I have witnessed religious bigotry in the boy scouts. You don’t mention that, you just say: “…attacks on the Boy Scouts…” That is not quite true now, is it? You are manipulating the facts to portray something quie different from reality. What has been “attacked,” as you put it, is those within the organization who are racist or in some way biggoted.

Ther has NEVER been ANY such attack on heterosexual marriage!!!!! That is not just a lie, it is total BULLSHIT! Those who are trying to legalize gay marriage want only to be able to enjoy the legal rights and privileges afforded to other citizens! It isn’t about getting married in YOUR church! It isn’t about religion at all. That’s a load of CRAP!

As for the ten commandments…How can you say that a public court house should be allowed to foster an established religious document or doctrine under our constitution? The answer, I believe, is that the evangelical side of the coin in this country is not only poorly educated with respect to religion, but WHOAfully so with respect to civics! The Constitution is in danger of total neglect at the hands of the evangelicals and republicans.

THose who make the rediculous claim that the ten commandments have historical significance as the earliest law are too poorly educated to know of HAMMURABI’s CODE!!!!

The dreams and visions of the Founding Fathers are about as alien to this *messege* as the surface of MARS!!!!

How ‘bout the town of Edmund OK? Not so long ago, Edmund was incorporating as a city and chose to include a CROSS as a part of the town emblem! What about perfectly patriotic Americans, who for whatever reason (Job transfer, home buying opportunity, etc), found themselves making arrangements to move to Edmond…BUT HAPPENED TO BE JEWISH, MUSLIM, BAHAI, BUDHIST or even ATHEISTS like Karl Rove? Are they LESS American because their new town chooses to embrace a different established religion?

Bottom line: Sentiments like this one above, come from a misunderstanding not only of our Constitution and the values of our Founding Fathers, they also come from a rather misguided misunderstanding of their OWN internal MORALITY.

Jesus himself, would not consider the *sentiments* of this poster to be CHRISTIAN!

Posted by: RGF at June 12, 2007 11:28 PM
Comment #223035

Wow David for such a long post you sure havent said one thing that hasnt been said by Rush and Sean in the past week. Try again its all old news. Yawn.. And by the way good job on not letting facts get in the way of your rant.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 12, 2007 11:28 PM
Comment #223036

A sweet Liberalism, she is a seductive tart, promising so many pleasures! Sign me up!

Posted by: Gerrold at June 12, 2007 11:30 PM
Comment #223038

According to this article, President Bush never was a conservative. But, that begs a question? If the Republican Congress backed this liberal President Bush 100% from 2001 through 2006, what does this say about the Republican Party. Appears true conservatives need to find some party other than the Republican or Democratic, because conservativism as described in this article does not reside in the practitioners of either of the main parties.

Medicare Rx drug bill, biggest growth program in government in decades - Republican. Elective war without defensive purpose in Iraq - Republican. Growth of national debt by nearly more than 3 trillion dollars in just 6 years - Republican. Abdication of law enforcement and border security since 1994 - Republican and Democratic.

Terry Shiavo - Intrusion into personal lives - Republican. Dictating a woman’s bodily functions - Republican and contradiction of the true conservative ideal of keeping government out of our personal lives.

Yep, sure is tough for a true conservative these days, as there is no major party for them to feel comfortable in. Perhaps the Constitution Party will see its ranks grow with the true conservatives abandoning the Republican Party. Time will tell.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2007 12:16 AM
Comment #223046

David H,
What is Liberalism?

I will return to that question. But first, what do you advocate in its stead? There are many forms of conservatism.

There is the libertarian version of conservatism, but with all the references to God, morals, and social issues, that does not seem to be what you have in mind.

There is the corporatist version of conservatism; “The business of America is business”; but once again, that does not seem to be where you are coming from.

Finally, there is the social version of conservatism. And that seems to be where you stand when you attack Liberalism.

This social version of conservatism is the conservatism of Miracle, Mystery, and Authority. (Read “The Grand Inquisitor” section from “The Brothers Karamazov, by Dostoyevsky). In terms of Kohlberg”s heirarchy of moral development, this is a relatively retarded stage.

In Christian terms, this is the conservative version of Jesus that depends upon the “wow” factor- lots of miracles and supernatural occurences to awe the gullible. This conservative version demands obedience, observance of commandments, & submission to a social heirarchy, and power structure embodied by the church.

It is in stark contrast with the liberal version of Jesus, the one who gives the Sermon on the Mount. This speech espouses the values of Liberalism: compassion, helping others, charity, brotherly love, what you refer to as a “temptress,” because it results in an unmanly “nanny state” which seeks to share the public commons.

You write: “… The Boy Scouts, the Ten Commandments, the pledge of allegiance and heterosexual marriage. The institutions, symbols, and traditions that have been the heart of the American culture…”

These are not the heart of American culture, nor are they at the heart of the constitution. These mere outward manifestations, static institutions defended by conservatives like a wall, a Berlin Wall, a Pink Floydian Wall, instead of defending the inner meaning which grounds our country, a truth at the heart of Liberalism.

That truth is grounded in Human Rights, in the separation of church and state, in the speech from the well of the House of Representatives delivered by John Quincy Adams on July 4th, 1826; we see it in the speeches of Martin Luther King, in the votes of politicians who side against unnecessary, unjust wars.

We saw the heart of Liberalism when Jesus threw the moneychambers out of the temple, and we see the same today among those who would side against the military/industrial complex, against tax cuts solely for the rich, acting instead as advocates for universal health care and for the poorest among us.


Posted by: phx8 at June 13, 2007 2:26 AM
Comment #223049

The real seductress is the idea of confronting enemies at home when confronting them abroad becomes the subject of controversy or heavy criticism. It’s great for people who don’t want to face difficult notions of what it means to be an American and what you have to do to keep America safe.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2007 2:50 AM
Comment #223053

phx8, very well said!

As both a woman and a liberal, I must say this article positively drips with misogyny, scorn, and a truly frightening narrow mindset.

Ah well, the sad truth is, some men don’t know how to treat a beautiful, seductive, free-thinking woman like anything other than a cheap whore.
And brother, is that ever their loss — even if they don’t realize it.

Funny thing about it though, while they spend a great deal of of time singing the praises of the staid, passive, traditional-minded sort, it’s so painfully obvious that they’re really not getting much out of life with that poor old girl — and clearly, neither does she.
:^/

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2007 3:17 AM
Comment #223062

phx8,

Damn! Until I read your piece, I was going to sell the house, quit my job, cash in my stocks, and live in forbidden sin with that sexy siren.

Posted by: Gerrold at June 13, 2007 6:14 AM
Comment #223065

Dear Penthouse…

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 13, 2007 7:46 AM
Comment #223083

Gerrold,

Once I asked a saffron-robed Buddhist monk, “How can you live by begging? I see your point about not owning things, and how a spirtiual person might take a vow of poverty, but how can you survive without material goods? What if everyone did that?” He shrugged and replied, “Somehow, I doubt it will ever happen.”

Buddhists crack me up. They are always so practical. Doctrine is only useful if it works. But for most religions, there is the version for full-time true practicioners, and the version for ordinary people. In this regard, religion is like politics. For most people, it is a relatively casual thing.

The problem arises when the underlying message becomes sick, through atrophy, if you will, or hardening of the arteries. The message becomes a wall of exclusion, a series of set rules defining the message in terms of the tribe.

We see this in the article by David H. There really is a fundamentally primitive, tribal message behind his attack on Liberalism. How dare liberals see people as humans first, and Americans second! How dare they seduce with a global perspective, rather than a nationalistic one!

It is a demand for loyalty to the tribe- its language, culture, borders, its walls, both real and imagined- and the divisiveness results in a divided field, “us” versus “them,” sowing the seeds for hatred, intolerance for the other, and conflict.

Posted by: phx8 at June 13, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment #223088

David H, interesting analogy. Actually, I liken it to the ending of the movie “Raiders of the Lost Ark”; where they open the Ark and the beautiful spirits come out, only to turn into scary monsters and kill everyone.

Posted by: rahdigly at June 13, 2007 1:19 PM
Comment #223092

The main problems with the posting:
1) Liberals as the root of all evil. The value of a message often depends on A) Its truth value and B) The uniqueness of its insights. Huntwork cannot succeed on “A” because you could potentially say half the country are evil people, and that’s an absurdity. He doesn’t succeed on “B” because most people have heard this all before. There are plenty of other creatures filling this niche of generalized broadsiding of liberals.

2) His party has tried this kind of blowhard approach before. Ultimately, it can only serve to boil off the majority of potential voters, especially in times where the consensus is running against them.

3) His party has failed to develop a healthy attitude towards compromise. This does not mean giving in on all things. It means recognizing that within the space of solutions, there are solutions you can settle for with other people. The Republican party has bled itself dry getting into fights on almost every issue, not realizing that the price of getting other people’s cooperation is often letting them in on the decision making. If all you know how to do is fight, if you can’t find common ground, you lose out on an awful lot of cooperation. That can be especially bad if your principles and ideas actually have some substance to them. The experience of a good idea at work is better than abstract rhetoric at persuading people to a course of action.

Also, a fight-oriented partisanship can end up dividing the party, as some important issue puts individual members to the test.

It also doesn’t help if you’re trying to back away from a bad or unpopular position. If everything is about the rivalry, you can’t admit certain things without opening yourself up to attack. If you can negotiate, you can slowly phase out the idiocy and move on to better ideas.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2007 2:09 PM
Comment #223093

rahdigly,

The scary monsters would be those who so completely misunderstand the nature and foundations of our great experiment, that the miss the point that from Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau to Kant, Payne, Adams and Jefferson, our country on BUILT on LIBERAL IDEALS!

We are very much a LIBERAL democracy (or republic, if you prefer, but a democratic republic, nonetheless).

Those evangelical types who espouse ONE religion and ONE set of silly superficial supposedly “American” ideals, are actually espousing a kind of cultural eugenics more akin to NAZI-ism than the ideals of our Founding Fathers!

The whole purpose behind the anti-establishment clause, was/is to recognize the existence and value of differing religious beliefs among the early, post-colonial Americans. That reality is even more true today…not less.

The only functional ideal that EVER made any sense from the conservative side, WAS the fiscal conservative movement that began with Hayak in post-WWII and rose to public attention with Goldwater in ‘64. Reagan was at least partially the embodiment of the height of the acceptence and understanding of the need for small government and the “velocity” of money through trade.

Bush Sr hammered the first nails in the coffin of fiscal conservatism and W SHOT fiscal conservatism right between the eyes by running up MORE deficeit, adding MORE national debt and growing the federal government larger THAN ALL THE PREVIOUS HISTORY THIS COUNTRY COMBINED!!!!

Make all the silly analogies you want. That’s all that is left for the republicans to try to sell, now.

We have reached the point where failing to invigorate the LIBERAL ideals upon which this country was founded, will only result in the ultimate destruction of everything that makes this country work.

Posted by: RGF at June 13, 2007 2:25 PM
Comment #223102

RGF,

“The scary monsters would be those who so completely misunderstand the nature and foundations of our great experiment, that the miss the point that from Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau to Kant, Payne, Adams and Jefferson, our country on BUILT on LIBERAL IDEALS!”


Not “modern” liberalism, that’s for sure. Today’s liberals would have come out against most of them. Hell, they wouldn’t have room for FDR, Truman, and JFK; they would be bumped out of the party like Lieberman.


Posted by: rahdigly at June 13, 2007 3:47 PM
Comment #223114

Rahdigly-
I guess you’re saying that the only good liberal is a dead liberal, right? While we’re arguing counterfactuals, lets speculate on what you would have criticized coming from FDR, Truman, and JFK.

Many Republicans criticized FDR’s insistence on lending aid to the allies in WWII. You would have likely said that the President should keep us out of foreign wars, and only come around when we got hit.

In the Truman Era, you would have probably criticized Containment as a doctrine and pushed for an early exit from Korea. You probably would have joyfully participated in the McCarthy Red Scare.

In the Kennedy administration, you would likely have cursed him up one side and down the other on the Cuban Missile Crisis, saying that he should have invaded Cuba and deposed Castro, regardless of what it meant. You would, however, have pushed him on the Vietnam war, and likely have been one of the Conservatives who would curse him for any departure from escalating use of force to save Vietnam.

In all three administrations, you would have been at odds with their economic policies. These guys were classically liberal in that respect. FDR and Truman you would have likely compared to Communists.

In many ways, today’s liberalism is a weaker brew of the kind these men practiced. Aside from some cultural conservatism that these fellows would have had, being of their time, they would have found much of today’s liberalism somewhat center-right. This is the sort of looking glass approach to today’s liberalism that comes from the ingrained habits of portraying modern Democrats as leftists that has remained despite the Republican’s successful pull of the Democrats towards their values.

At this point in history, I trust your average Republican Pundit to give me lessons on what true liberalism as much as I trust a drunk to give me true lessons on sobriety. I think your party’s perspective on us is just a little bit skewed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2007 5:05 PM
Comment #223116

rahdigly,

You make that statement based on some rather peculiar biased assumptions:

You believe the issues that are prominant among Liberals today would be approached differently by people from the past.

Well, of course, but less differently than you might think. Ultimately, values and goals are the same. Slavery abolitionists may not necessarily see the same injustices in our modern immigration issue, but they are there. Laborers from latin America are being abused and taken advantage of in very similar ways with very similar results to those injustices carried out against slaves - Same issue in a different light and context.

Therefore I disagree with your assessment. If the same liberal thinkers from the past faced the issues we face today, with the same moral compasses they always possessed, I believe they would come to the same conclusions.

The reason you don’t think so, I suggest, is because you see those issues being fought for by liberal thinkers today as ‘Going too far.’
…such as gay marriage rights, perhaps - or even fighting to keep from having laws or government recognize a given establishment of religion, for instance. It is a matter of helping you to understand the SIMILARITY between the issues faced by the great historical Liberal thinkers and the modern liberal thinkers. The issues are actually REMARKABLY the same…only the context changes.

In a way, the problem is the inherent RELATIVISTIC thinking of the right. The moral philosophy of the left depends on an understanding of ABSOLUTES.

WAR is WRONG - no exceptions
Violence begets violence.
God is bigger than ALL our theologies.
Turn the other cheek and love thy enemy and neighbor are NOT optional.
The exortation: Treat others as you would have them treat you - is not exclusive to certain of those from specific regions, religions or territorial nations.

And yet, the right is continually claiming quite the opposite. Actions speak louder tha words.

Posted by: RGF at June 13, 2007 5:17 PM
Comment #223117

If Liberalism is “a beautiful seductive temptress” and Conservatism is a “whore”…

I guess that makes Libertarianism a MILF.

Of course, I suppose we could stop calling each other (and ourselves) names and just discuss things rationally and politely… But what would be the fun in that, especially for a group of political whoremongers like us?

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 13, 2007 5:28 PM
Comment #223125

Traveler,

I have to admit I was amused by the rhetoric. I haven’t read anything like this since, well, the last time eric or sicilian eagle posted. Those guys seem more like Republican apologists, though; David seems to be a true social conservative.

Posted by: Gerrold at June 13, 2007 5:54 PM
Comment #223129

funny, seems once again the those posting on the left went back to trying to point out the faults of the right, rather than trying to prove why david h was wrong about liberalism. it’s the old, “YOUR A BIGGER ONE” argument.

Posted by: dbs at June 13, 2007 7:30 PM
Comment #223131

Good grief, dbs; we’re supposed to defend yourselves from being the font of all evil? Nevertheless, phx8, at least, gave a quite eloquent defense of liberalism.

Posted by: Gerrold at June 13, 2007 7:47 PM
Comment #223132

Or, even, “ourselves.”

Posted by: Gerrold at June 13, 2007 7:48 PM
Comment #223134

Gerrold


the goals of liberalism are admirable. who would be against equality, or feeding the hungry, etc. the problem lies in the details of how liberals intend to acomplish these ideals. this usually involves redistribution of wealth, or taking by force what belongs to one person and giving it to another who didn’t earn it, or the infringment of others rights to wealth, property, or freedoms they have worked for, in order to rid oneself of the feeling of personal guilt. if i see a poor man standing on a street corner, and i have $10 in my pocket and give him $5 that would be charity, if i take the $5 from your pocket against your will and give it to him that is theft. i’ve noticed liberals feel they have the right to be generous with other peoples money. this is not charity, nor is it admirable.

Posted by: dbs at June 13, 2007 8:09 PM
Comment #223137

Heh.

Welcome to the fold, David.

Posted by: esimonson at June 13, 2007 9:42 PM
Comment #223141

dbs Seems you forgot the standard “at the point of a gun” that is required when using this type of analogy to explain the charity talking point.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 13, 2007 10:05 PM
Comment #223144

dbs-
That’s not liberalism at all. We don’t favor things like social security or other social programs out of guilt. It’s a combination of social responsibility (not charity, since most SS recipients pay into the system they rely on later), altruism (why not use government to help people?), and some degree of self-interest. After all, most seniors want to remain somewhat independent, and most families would rather they not have to support their parents when they retire.

I find “government as theft” to be a disingenuous argument, since each citizen, including the supposed victim(s) has a political voice in vote and in expression concerning that so-called gift. Additionally, the people who support the measure pay out of pocket as well

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2007 10:43 PM
Comment #223151

j2t2

you said it i didn’t. doesn’t make it any less true.

Posted by: dbs at June 13, 2007 10:56 PM
Comment #223154

“since most SS recipients pay into the system they rely on later),”


do they pay in of thier own free will, or are they forced to pay in, big difference.


“why not use government to help people?),”


no thanks. don’t want or need that kind of help.

“After all, most seniors want to remain somewhat independent, and most families would rather they not have to support their parents when they retire.”


thats what families are for. why should i have to support someone elses family member, or be responsable for someone elses poor life decisions.

“I find “government as theft” to be a disingenuous argument, since each citizen, including the supposed victim(s) has a political voice in vote and in expression concerning that so-called gift. Additionally, the people who support the measure pay out of pocket as well”


each may have a political voice, but if they are in the minority, that voice doesn’t count. they are still forced by the will of the majority, so it is theft since the $ is taken against thier will. to call it a gift is disingenuous, because it is not given of free will.

the bottom line is if you feel it’s your responsability, you handle it. don’t force your beliefs, or your will, on me.


Posted by: dbs at June 13, 2007 11:17 PM
Comment #223159

dbs,

I can sympathize with your form of conservatism more than the “moral/social” variety. Much of my tax money is spent in ways that I abhor (on cluster bombs with their toll on the innocent, for example). But I don’t mind as much when it helps the little old lady down the street pay for her groceries. At any rate, your brand of conservatism doesn’t label me evil simply because I think, for example, gays should have the right to serve openly in the military.

Posted by: Gerrold at June 13, 2007 11:54 PM
Comment #223175

dbs-
Most people neither object to paying in, nor being paid back.

As for government, I would rather have it on my side, on the public’s side, than serving special interests and esoteric political factions to the exception of the common good.

As for the independence of both the family and the elderly? Nothing stops families from still taking them in. Difference is, they got an alternative to that beyond abandonment, and even if they do decide to have the elder move in, they still have that income helping to defray the costs, and reduce the burden. As for poor life decisions? Sometimes being poor is not a life decision. There are costs to being upwardly mobile, and not everybody has the right circumstances to give them an easy retirement.

This is a Democracy. If you can convince a majority of people that Social Security or any other measure you don’t like is bad, you can have your respite from what you call theft. Until then, it’s the law, and that’s the way Democracies work. Now I can peevishly call every policy I don’t agree with a theft of my money, rhetorically rewritting what is the law into a crime, or I can deal with the actual issue, and give people real reasons to change their mind.

Nobody can force their beliefs on you. They can only obligate you to follow the law. If you argue successfully enough against the law, you can change the law. Until then, its just melodramatic to treat it like a crime.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 14, 2007 8:32 AM
Comment #223194

RGF,

“If the same liberal thinkers from the past faced the issues we face today, with the same moral compasses they always possessed, I believe they would come to the same conclusions…
WAR is WRONG - no exceptions
Violence begets violence.
God is bigger than ALL our theologies.
Turn the other cheek and love thy enemy and neighbor are NOT optional.
The exortation: Treat others as you would have them treat you - is not exclusive to certain of those from specific regions, religions or territorial nations.”


You just try and tell FDR that “War is wrong” and “violence begets violence” and you would (clearly) see that you are completly wrong; “history” and “facts” are not on your side with that one. There’s no comparison with the liberals prior to LBJ and the liberals of today; none whatsoever. Modern liberalism is pathetic and they are not doing the things (the pre-LBJ liberals) would do to make their country better. It’s just not happening and none of you have made the case that they are. And RGF, you did not make the case that the liberals you cited earlier, would be accepted today. In fact, you did not even mention any current liberals; you had to cite libs that were dead.

Posted by: rahdigly at June 14, 2007 1:59 PM
Comment #223198

dbs, just trying to help with that pathetic “its all about me and Im greedy” arguement used by todays conservatives and libertarians to not do their fair share to keep this society functional.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 14, 2007 5:10 PM
Comment #223211

Rahdigly-
Just how do you consider yourself an expert on what old-fashioned liberals believe? I hardly doubt that any of the internationalists you list would have kind words for a president who so blatantly disregards world opinion and international law. They would be absolutely appalled at the hatred expressed for the UN, and outraged by the diplomatic ham-handedness of this president.

None of them favored pre-emptive warfare, much less the attacking the enemy first. Kennedy would have surely seen haunting echoes of the bay of pigs in the expectation Republicans had at the beginning of the war.

You appeal to the liberals of the past because they are safely dead, an unable to contradict you. Truth is, though, they were even more liberal in many respects than modern liberals are. They would not have though big government a bad thing. They would have all found the Bush tax cuts irresponsible. They were all demand-side, with few qualms about government intervention.

Hell, there are so many disparities between you and them that it’s obvious that you have no sincere admiration for what they really stood for. If you did, you wouldn’t be attacking Liberals, you’d be advocating compromise, and offering a more moderate foreign and domestic policy direction.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 14, 2007 8:15 PM
Comment #223212

j2t2


” just trying to help with that pathetic “its all about me and Im greedy” arguement used by todays conservatives and libertarians to not do their fair share to keep this society functional. “


gotcha, wanting to keep what i have earned is greedy, thanks for straightening me out on that one.


by keeping society functional you mean being taxed to pay for things like infrastructure, you know like roads, emergency services, water, power, police, a military, you get the point. if thats the case no i don’t have a problem with it. if your talking about welfare, free health care for illegal aliens, schooling for thier children, gov’t hand outs to people who capable of working, or coughing up money to pay for the lazy, and those who made bad decisions like having multiple children without the income to support them, well you get the point. yes i have a problem with it.


one more thing, you do not know enough about me to call me greedy. you have no idea how much i donate to charity, either in $, or personal time, and fankly it’s none of your business, the fact that i think using the gov’t to solve all societies ills, is the most inefficient way possible to accomplish things, doesn’t make me greedy. every time you folks come up with some new plan to help, and claim it’s because your so compassionate, it always seems to involve raising peoples taxes. here’s an idea, get together with those who agree with you and fund it yourselves, try being generous with your own money rather than everyone elses.


Posted by: dbs at June 14, 2007 8:21 PM
Comment #223215

stephen


“As for government, I would rather have it on my side, on the public’s side, than serving special interests and esoteric political factions to the exception of the common good.”


this is the problem, gov’t exists to perpetuate itself. once you create a new beauracracy to handle a new program it’s imposible to get rid of even if it is not doing its job well. you have public employees and and public employees unions which have no other interest but to protect there existence. private charitable organizations are far more effective, because they are ultimately responsable for thier performance. if they don’t perform, the donors can cut them off. try taking tax money away from the gov’t once they gotten thier hands on it. the gov’t is not on your side stephen, no matter who the special interest is, a fortune 500 corp., or a public employees union.

Posted by: dbs at June 14, 2007 10:09 PM
Comment #223223

Stephen, the only reason I refered to the liberals of the past was b/c the blogger cited them; I merely responded to that statement. Since then, none of you came close to explaining what today’s liberals are doing to help this country and how they would react to the (liberal) leaders of the past, who are dead (very perceptive on your part), and how those leaders would be treated (by modern libs) today.

JFK was certainly for tax cuts and he, truman and FDR were (certainly) for war and preemption. FDR was getting his butt kicked (politically), in 1940, over being the President that would send his country to war. He saw threat of Nazism (along with Churchill) way before any military action was taken. Today’s liberals only see conservatives and repubs as the threats; even though they are not even close to being the enemy of this country. You are going to have to put down the partisan kool-aid and actually explain yourself here. Modern liberalism is not helping this country like liberalism in the past; if so, then prove it. And prove that the three (Democrat) Presidents (FDR, Truman & JFK) would make it in the Democratic party today?!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 15, 2007 12:02 AM
Comment #223258

dbs-
You say its impossible. I say it takes planning. You say private charities do better than government. I say I recall the Red Cross fielding quite a bit of criticism over it’s behavior during Katrina; private and public enterprises along these lines can both get caught up in Bureaucratic B.S. Neither deserves to be worshiped as the sole means of getting something good done in this world.

You say government is not on your side, I say that kind of generalization is part of what sunk the Republican Majority. Who improves government, and restrains it from doing incompetent and corrupt things when they expect nothing better, and see no hope for better?

Rahdigly-
JFK was for Tax Cuts at a time when the marginal rates were much higher. Truman shaped the Cold War Policy of Containment, which was in essence a defensive strategy- JFK continued it. JFK pre-emptively invaded Cuba once and never wanted to do it again. FDR was not for pre-emption. World War Two did not start when we attacked Japan.

I’ve explained myself to a much greater extent than you have yourself. You generalize broadly, and openly about how we would oppose JFK, FDR, and Truman, and don’t provide a shred of evidence that most Liberals think this way, or that JFK FDR and Truman would think your way. I noted the kinds of opinions where you and them would diverge.

This is a rhetorical tactic, little more, a way to portray Modern Democrats as traitorous degenerates, betrayers of even their own past. You just cite their example to fuel your notion of what just war should be. You hardly provide any historical evidence that these people agreed with what your notions are.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 15, 2007 6:35 PM
Comment #223290

stephen

“You say its impossible. I say it takes planning. You say private charities do better than government. I say I recall the Red Cross fielding quite a bit of criticism over it’s behavior during Katrina; private and public enterprises along these lines can both get caught up in Bureaucratic B.S. Neither deserves to be worshiped as the sole means of getting something good done in this world.”


i never indicated that private charities should be worshiped, only that they are much more easily held accountable, being as people can choose to no longer donate to them if they are missusing or squandering money. the same can not be said about gov’t. if the gov’t is waisting my tax money and there is no political will to stop it, i can’t just simply stop paying that portion of my taxes.


as for it being imposible to trust the gov’t to act in my best interest, i didn’t say that. what i said was it was highly unlikely that once a program is started, it’s nearly impossible to end it if it’s not performing well, because of the public employees and thier unions.

“You say government is not on your side, I say that kind of generalization is part of what sunk the Republican Majority. Who improves government, and restrains it from doing incompetent and corrupt things when they expect nothing better, and see no hope for better?”


what sunk the republican party was corruption scandels, and the abandoning of the conservative principles, they were elected to carry out. BTW congresses aproval levels are lower than they were when the republicans were in power. if you think the culture of corruption will stop now that the dems are in charge, you will be sorely disappointed, as they are proving to be no better. remeber they were ousted from power back in 94 for the same type of crap that cost the reps control last year, and they’re right on track to do the same thing all over again. if they go back to pushing tax increases, gun control, and support this amnesty bill, it will surely bite them in the ass.


Posted by: dbs at June 16, 2007 1:02 PM
Comment #223688

Liberalism is like a 5 day work week. Sounds good when lieing to the public but never enacted. Nancy Pelosi is the perfect liberal. Not worth the paper she is printed on. Unless it is Hillary after all she was named after a famous mountain climber years before he became a famous mountain climber. Now that is what liberalism is all about lies and crocks.

Posted by: im at June 21, 2007 8:16 PM
Post a comment