Why Do Liberals Hate?
| Mark Levin of WABC-AM New Talk Radio (New York) asked some interesting questions in his program yesterday. It's unbelievable when you think about what these libs stand for. Sometimes it takes something like this to bring it all in focus. Simply unbelievable... |  |
MP3 Version
AVI Version
WMA Version
UPDATE: For those of you with bandwidth problems, here is the transcript...
I have some questions for you liberals.Why do liberals hate this country? Why do they hate individual liberty? Why do they hate the American culture? Why do liberals hate American sovreignty? Why do they hate the United States military? Why do they hate law enforcement? Why do liberals hate the Constitution? Why do they hate the founding Fathers? ...who they disparage all the time. Why do they hate free political speech? Why do they hate talk radio? Why do they hate the free exercise of religion? Why do liberals hate gun ownership? Why do they hate capitalism? Why do they hate private property rights? Why do liberals hate competition and successful people? Why do they hate hard-working people... and merit? Why do they hate profits? Why do they hate employers? Why do they hate a color-blind society? Why do they hate unborn babies? And why do liberals hate the nuclear family?
Just a few questions to ponder.
posted by Hawkeye® -- Friday, February 02, 2007
13 Comments
13 Comments:
Good question--er, questions--all.
Oh dear, here we go again. Sometimes it takes something like this to bring it all in focus. Simply unvelievable...
Not being a touch devisive here are we? My question, as a proud, unavowed, unabashed, unwavering and defiant progressive of the deepest red and green, is: Why on earth do conservatives think liberals 'hate' all these things? Really. I want to know. Answer this and I might, as one in the know, put y'all out of your misery.
The thing is, of course, that this is errant nonsense. The very idea that you might think this fool is spouting some kind of profound wisdom is deeply troubling to me. All I can surmise is that a) he is merely ill-informed and does not truly understand the progressives' postion, or b) he does understand it but pretends not to so as to please his customers. In other words, to me he is either lying or stuid.
Actually, apart from gun ownership and the nuclear 'family' (he's right there; we're really not that fond gun ownership and the nuclear family) we progressives ask exactly the same questions of Conservatives. Why, we wonder, do Conservatives hate so much?
So, right here on Veiw From Above, we can do one of two things. We could take this opportunity to discuss this issue in a rational and intelligent manner, to work out why we both think that the other is the one with the problems and to clarify exactly where we, as representatives of both camps, stand on the issues presented by whomever that was. That would be the constructive, adult, mature thing to do.
Or we could both just lie on our respective couches
and lob these rhetorical grenades over the partisan parapets with no interest or desire to get a reply, mererly satisfying our predujices and bigotry, and digger deeper holes in which to bury not only our heads but our hearts and minds.
The world is going down the gurgler. If we are to save it, we must understand each other better. We could start doning that right here, right now. Any takers?
I'll go first.
'Why do Liberals hate America?'
Of course liberals don't 'hate America'. They do, however, have issues with many of the current administration's foreign and domestic policies and, are excercisng their democratic right to voice those objections. Indeed, they do this BECAUSE they love America and do not wish to see her or her people hurt. That they can voice that difference of opinion as to how that objective might be acheived is supposed to be the fundamental freedom the US military is purported to be fighting for.
In fact, it is the willfull misrepresentation of liberals' positions, and the suppresion of the basic right of free speech that conservatives are actively engaged in, that lead the Left to wonder why it is that Conservatives are so down on one of the most fundamental characteristics of the USA.
But because I know that conservatives do not hate America per se, I ask: Why do conservatives hate the First Ammendment?
Over to you guys!
Cheers
Elroy
Ooops. I changed "unvelievable" to "unbelievable". Sorry about that.
Too much for my gerbil, of course, so I didn't "View". :o(
I did catch a bit of Charlie Gibson news the other night and a line jumped out at me:
"The Democrats are frustrated that the White House isn't taking their non-binding resolution seriously."
Bwhahahahaha and D'oh!
Elroy: "Or we could both just lie on our respective couches
and lob these rhetorical grenades over the partisan parapets with no interest or desire to get a reply, mererly satisfying our predujices and bigotry, and digger deeper holes in which to bury not only our heads but our hearts and minds."
Seems to fit, eh? [Rhetorical question, not trolling.]
Marge,
So now you can read what the "fuss" has been all about for Elroy.
(:D) Regards...
Elroy,
"Not being a touch devisive(sic) here are we?"
Why am I divisive when I question the beliefs of liberals... but you are NOT divisive when you question the beliefs of conservatives?
"a proud, unavowed, unabashed, unwavering and defiant progressive of the deepest red and green"
I assume that you refer to the "red" of Communism and the "green" of Environmentalism? If not, please enlighten me.
I will respond to your next question in my next article.
Conservatives have been doing this stuff for ages. They question the motives of anyone left of Genghis Khan with empty rhetoric like that of Mr. Levin without ever offering any proof. It’s one thing to spout this rubbish but another to back it up with some substantial reasoning.
It also important to recognize that up until recently the Republicans held power in all three arms of government, executive, legislative and, although it is meant to be impartial, judicial. leaving the Democratic Party as a powerless opposition excluded from discussion, debate and decision making. From this position their options are limited but, as they are the opposition, they do their job and oppose.
This, it might come as a surprise to you, is what they are supposed to do, to question and pick holes in the ruling party’s agenda and actions. To this end they have been pointing out the inconsistencies between what the Republican say they believe and what they actually do, Remember, it is Republicans that are running the agenda out of the WH, and based on their actions over the past six years progressives have good cause to question the Republican’s beliefs
However, it is somewhat inappropriate for Right-wing demagogues like Levin to be taking his little pot-shots at Liberal’s values and beliefs when, by design and intent, the Right have no idea what the Left do actually stand for. They have spent the past 6 tears not wanting to know. So they merely assume they now, or think they know, or whatever.
The point is, we on the left KNOW what the Right stand for; conservatives have never exactly been backwards in coming forwards, and so we know the differences between
their legislative and philosophical agendas. But what do conservatives know of ours? If Mark Levin is anything to go by, very little. So when Mr. Levin says these things they are divisive because they are gratuitous; he has, or does not appear to have, any factual basis for his opinion. When liberals question conservatives’ actions it is because said actions are so at odds with conservatives stated beliefs. How d’ya like them apples?
On the color-coded front, the ‘red-and-green’ comment was just me indulging in a little
Conservative-style reductionism. The ‘red’ means that, in reality, I am a tad left of Nader and Chomsky. Of course, to you this means that I am a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist commie pinko scumbag, but to do that would be a failure to recognize the diversity of opinion on the Left. what you deride as being so incompetent so as not be able to even ‘agree on a message.’ ‘They’re all over the place on the issue!’ hollers Sean Hannity.
However, when conservatives find themselves in disagreement we are told that they are a ‘broad church’. Well, we’re a broad church too. OK?
The ‘green’ means that I’m such a sucker I’ve bought into the whole ‘climate change’ boondoggle, but my angle is this: if there is a threat to civilization, if all the available intelligence supports the existence of that threat and if the best way to deal with that threat would be to act ‘pre-emptively’, would you not do so? Yes, you would. You did.
You started a war in Iraq. And I want to save the planet. And if those criteria were good enough to justify the Iraq adventure, why is it not good enough to limit the production of Greenhouse gasses? I am well aware of the irony of the fact that we both find ourselves reversing our positions here, but there are many differences. For instance, I don’t recall corporate pressure and cold harsh cash being used to influence the information being released about Iraq; I do, however, remember that the WH finessed reports on both subjects to reflect the result they wanted. But there is one very important distinction; your crusade takes lives – mine saves them.
However, having said all that I shall now read and respond to your latest posting.
Cheers
Elroy
P.S. Of my suggestion that pick through the questions one by one. How about it?
Levin is one of the most divisive of the anti-intellectual wing of the conservative talk show radio hosts. Hannity is little better. Much of what Levin does is meant to be shockingly simple and oriented towards the fear and hatred the right holds for the left.
Of course the questions Levin asks are rhetorical and of course they're disingenuous. But, like all stereotypes, there is a kernel of truth in many of the assertions implied by the questions.
I could easily show the kernels present in each assertion, indicating examples of progressive leaders who espouse the hatred Levin assigns to them, but that would be tedious. It would also be tedious to point out the hypocrisy inherent in many of Elroy's statements, but of course, it would be fun: )
Still, more important is the explanation for why people believe as they do. It often baffles me as to why otherwise intelligent and learned people espouse beliefs that to me are so clearly wrong-headed. This goes for both sides of the political divide. I have been researching this question over the past few years and I'm still not sure I have it figured out. Thomas Sowell presents a pretty interesting theory in his book, "A Conflict of Visions". His theory explains why some of the most "progressive" or liberal thinkers seem to be the most interested in restricting the freedoms of individuals-one of the most confusing aspects of this dilemma. I'm still not sure it explains all of the incongruities, though, and perhaps there is no "unified field theory" that will explain it all.
Suffice it to say, Elroy, as you already know, that your vision of what conservatives believe is also stereotypical and does not represent the incredible diversity of opinion that is the conservative belief continuum. To be fair this can also be said of Mark Levin and others of the right. You say that "we" believed the threat in Iraq was dangerous enough to act "pre-emptively" so we did. Well, of course not all of us thought we should (and, interestingly enough most of your liberal Democrat "leaders" clearly thought the threat was real and the response was appropriate because they voted for it), but for the sake of argument, I'll allow that inaccuracy.
You say you want to save the planet and that the difference between your view and the prevailing conservative view is that your actions (Kyoto-style response to "global warming") will save lives and the neocons' response is destroying lives. Would you believe that the green agenda is also destroying lives?
Environmentalists have been declaring one global disaster after another as "imminent" for fifty years or more and none of these "slam-dunk" prophecies have materialized. From Rachel Carson to Paul Ehrlich to Al Gore, it has been one doom and gloom scenario after another, with no actual evidence of the impending disaster ever arising. This has not prevented the reaction to these doomsday scenarios from causing incredible harm to the societies they were meant to protect. Quality of life has been held back or denied for many peoples because of these wrong-headed responses to problems that either did not exist or were self-correcting systems. This is the tyranny of the Left.
In free Western societies, air quality, water quality and quality of life in general (in almost every way measurable) has improved and is continuing to improve every day. The earth is responding to the "human assault" with a shrug rather than a shudder.
Tell me Elroy, why the "red and green" so despise personal liberty that they want to impose their restrictions upon individuals and force them to their view of what is right and wrong? From restricting personal freedoms in the food and substances we consume to the restriction of how developing nations and their peoples can earn a living and pull themselves and their countries out of poverty and disease, the "red and green" are united in denying people their freedom, "for their own good". Why is it that when a third world worker takes a job that you believe is "sweatshop labor", but he or she believes is the best job for them to provide for their family, it is your Western concept of exploitation that is the governing viewpoint? Why is it that when DDT can virtually eliminate malaria in third world countries, it is your view of its damage to the environment that governs the restriction of this substance that provides relief for millions from a ravaging disease? And why is it that a philosophy that has resulted in the deaths and enslavement of millions of people and has been an unsuccessful political ideology in every case where it has been engaged, holds so much currency among the "red and green", while the one that has shown the most success and enrichment for the most people whenever it is instituted, seems to be the ideology most despised by those leftist intellectuals?
Why?
Oh my. The only way to understand a liberal is to walk in their shoes, and that is what I did for many years. Yes, like many I was a red, white and blue hating liberal who marched in several of the largest anti-war parades this country ever saw. I was the local director of the WRL, a commie organization and I had all the left wing trash stickers on my car.
Many things happened ( to many to list here) that drove me to my senses. I don't personally know a conservative that became a liberal, but I can name hundreds of libs that saw the light and turned conservative.
Liberalism is not a brain defect, just bad upbringing in most cases..
Why do liberals hate? Simple, it's because they loathe themselves since they personalize EVERYTHING.
You see, despite the fact none of us have ever owned slaves, the liberal believes we should repent for what our ancestors have done and then pay reparations.
Liberals are very good at spending other people's money, too. That's how they define their compassion, by how much money they can get the federal government to take from your backpocket through confiscatory taxes and then apply it to their pet social entitlement theory. That's why conservatives give 30% more to private charity than liberals ... we've all seen that study.
Also, liberalism itself is a religion and the liberal's religion requires that they be in a hyper-state of penitence all the time for the least PC slight, real or imagined. That's why when this generation of Americans speaks of the evils of Saddam's regime, the liberal is quick to remind us what the Roman Catholic Holy Crusades did in response to Islamic depredations throughout southern Europe and the Middle East or ... how our American ancestors were giving blankets infected with smallpox to the American Indians in their version of biological warfare! I kid you not.
Liberalism is a pathology which only death or getting beat within an inch of their life by a random act of violence by what they define as the "downtrodden" can cure.
Conservatives believe a rising tide raises all ships and that's a good thing, but the liberal is still stuck on the fact that some ships are bigger than others and will go to any lengths to ensure no one has a bigger ship than they! Of course they altruistically are doing this in the name of the children ... or the poor. Liberals are more dangerous collectivists than communists because at least the communists were honest about what they were doing.
To liberals "fair" means equal outcome whereas to the conservative "fair" means opportunity to be the best you can be. And if you don't believe what they do you're only an ill-informed neanderthal since they represent the pinnacle of human civilization and sensibilities.
Elroy,
In addition to all the fine words of Marge, Beerme, Ms RightWing and Hankmeister, let me add the following:
The truth of global warming and its causes are by no means certain, despite the fact that the left-wing media types and the unscientific hacks like Al Gore are sure they know all.
A recent report from the U.N. placed a substantial amount of the blame for global warming on the raising of cattle. See my article on that subject HERE.
Also, a new report due out in a few months is expected to radically scale back the contributiion of humans to the global warming issue, perhaps by as much as one third.
Finally, we should all be grateful to a certain extent for global warming. It brought us out of the Ice Age and allowed mankind to flourish... unless of course you go back there.
From restricting personal freedoms in the food and substances we consume to the restriction of how developing nations and their peoples can earn a living and pull themselves and their countries out of poverty and disease, the "red and green" are united in denying people their freedom, "for their own good".
You've got to be kidding right? no really? Did you know that America consumes more 25% of the worlds' resources? As Stephen Colbert used to say "reality does have a liberal bias" but this is reality for yah. The west consumes, consumes consumes and consumes and throws around a few scraps for the third world, all the while, people like you can proclaim: "ohh we're helping them" with their lives with our awesome sweatshop employment deals! If you had nothing left, and the only CHOICE left was to work in a sweatshop, of course you will be willing to do whatever it takes in a bloody sweatshop. Let me ask y ou this, what makes you think that you and others have the authority to decide what is and isn't enough for these people? Is it because you think you all work that much harder and therefore "deserve" all these indulgences, and the average third world Singh does not? Rest assured that your so called "sweatshop workers", armed with adequate education and living conditions, wont' be falling head over heals for pennies, while their western friends eat 180 burgers in one sitting to win an eating competition. Something wrong with this picture?
Be back to handle the rest.......
Purplehaze,
"Did you know that America consumes more 25% of the worlds' resources? ...The west consumes, consumes consumes and consumes and throws around a few scraps for the third world, all the while, people like you can proclaim: "ohh we're helping them" with their lives with our awesome sweatshop employment deals! If you had nothing left, and the only CHOICE left was to work in a sweatshop, of course you will be willing to do whatever it takes in a bloody sweatshop."
Dear Mr. or Ms. Haze...
I love how people like you casually throw around this phrase that "America consumes more than 25% of the world's resources". Your implication of course, is that America is "stealing" those resources, and "wasting" those resources, and "denying" those resources to others who want them more than we do. I challenge you to prove it.
Yes, America "consumes" resources to be sure. But let's get a few things straight. First of all, America does not "steal" those resources. What America cannot produce for itself (and it produces plenty of its own)... it PURCHASES. That's right. America buys resources from other countries at going market prices that those countries are willing to accept.
Are the prices that America pays for those resources too low? I don't think so. The law of supply and demand (i.e., the market) sets the prices. Those countries who sell the resources are competing with one another to sell America their resources.
In fact, organizations like OPEC try to stifle market forces by using a cartel to artificially set prices higher than they otherwise would be in a free market. This is nothing less than "price-fixing", a practice which is considered illegal in the free market system of the United States. Bottom-line: America is getting the shaft, but still pays the artificially higher prices without complaining.
Secondly, America does not "waste" those resources. Well... not to the extent that some would have you believe. Do we waste some? Of course we do. You can't have an economy the size of the United States' without some waste. There is waste in the British economy, the Russian economy, the German economy, the French economy, the Chinese economy, and even the economy of little Liechtenstein.
Do we drive bigger cars than we ought to? Sure. Do environmentalists like Al Gore have a small carbon footprint? Hahaha! As he travels around in his private jet? How about Barbara Streisand... oh yeah, she uses a private jet too. John Kerry? Yup, private jet. Gimme a break. These "environmentalists" are nothing more than self-indulgent celebrities.
All that aside, the vast majority of resources America consumes are used to fuel an economy that is the envy of the world. America makes things. America employs people. America feeds the world with its agricultural exports. America makes computers and software that the rest of the world wants. America builds airplanes that the rest of the world wants. America makes movies that the rest of the world wants to see. America makes music that the rest of the world wants to hear. And America BUYS things, which fuels the economies of other countries.
After World War II, America rebuilt Germany and Japan. It was America's investment in those countries that brought them back from the brink of collapse. It is America's "consumption, consumption, consumption" that maintains the economies of countries like Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia. If it wasn't for America buying their wares or their oil, WHO WOULD? If it wasn't for us buying their wares or their oil, the prices of those wares and that oil would plummet... plunging the world into an economic recession. Ronald Reagan correctly said that in a real trade war, any of our major trade partners would surely lose. We could live without them, but they might not be able to live without us.
And finally, America is not "denying" anyone else in the world from getting those resources. America competes for them and buys them at the market price. If other countries want those resources, they too can buy them... as for example, China has been doing a lot of lately. China's economy has been booming. China has been sucking up LOTS of resources lately. The world prices for oil and metals have been going up in large part because China has been buying up everything in sight. Things have only settled down recently because China is taking a "breather".
Funny, but I haven't heard too many liberals around the world complaining about how CHINA is using up all the world's resources. You haven't heard Americans complaining that they have to compete in the market place with China, have you?
Grow up my friend. You are living in a dream world if you think America is the cause of all the world's problems. You should be more worried that one day the American economy might slump and throw the whole world into a recession. Then everyone will run to China and try to sell their wares to Beijing.
Oh yes... and by the way, if all I had was the opportunity to work in a "bloody" sweatshop, and if that meant that I could support my family, then you can be damn well sure that that's where I'd be working (if I was lucky enough to get a job there).
I acknowledge that it was merely an accident of birth that I was born an American. I am grateful to God for who I am, and for the circumstances of my upbringing.
I am proud to be an American. I, and my fellow Americans, give more to charity than any other country in the world. Aside from official U.S. government foreign aid, U.S. charitable donations are approximately $250 billion per year. That is approximately $833 per year for every man, woman, child and infant in the U.S. (including illegal aliens). Obviously, some give more and some give less. Most Americans realize that we have been blessed by God. We give with a spirit of thankfulness and humility.
"From those to whom much has been given... much is expected".
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home