Part Five of Five
THE ANTI-LIBERAL LIST
Broken Down into Five Parts
Twenty Statements Each
 |
| Two more faces of liberalism |
[When first presented we recommend treating this as a TRUE and FALSE Quiz, then asked for elaboration on any point or points in particular. Now we’re revealing answers of our own to which you are invited to respond as fully and furiously as you like. ~ FT]
82. Liberals automatically regard anyone who opposes them as a radical trouble maker and potential Enemy of the State.
FT: True –– but certainly not all liberals –– mostly their leaders –– but then we must acknowledge that many conservatives feel exactly that way about liberals. could both be right?
83. Liberals consider it a rightful duty to publish the names of law-abiding gun owners, but would quickly label it a violation of their Civil Rights if the addresses of all welfare recipients, known felons, and recipients of an abortion were published.
FT: True of some but by no mans all. This is a cheap shot –– a witless attempt to exploit the recent folly of New York newspaper to injure the reputation of a large segment of the population.
84. Liberals dream of the day when taxes become so high that you get to keep nothing from your paycheck. Instead of money, the government would issue you stamps or coupons redeemable at government-controlled supply depots for whatever the government decides you ought to have –– depending on availability, of course.
FT: True for those aiming at full-blown Communism, but few liberals realize –– or want to admit –– their beliefs tend to lead us in just that direction.
85. Liberals like to blame a certain race for unfair treatment in the distant past of another certain race for whatever violent crime that race currently commits.
FT: True –– maybe –– but the coy manner in which this is stated is frankly nauseating.
86. Liberals hope eventually to make cash illegal, and prohibit the ownership of diamonds, rubies, emeralds, pearls, plus gold, silver, platinum or any other precious metal in more than token amounts.
FT: False, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it turned out to be true in the long run. They forbade the use of gold as legal tender a long time ago, and stopped making silver coins with silver in the 1960's. Our currency now has no intrinsic value whatsoever. We live on fiat money.
87. Liberals say they can’t abide criminal profiling, but continually indulge in the practice where anyone who declares himself a patriot, who believes in the Constitution, who is active on behalf of the Christian religion and wants to keep and bear arms for his own protection and that of his family and close associates is concerned.
FT: False -- I hope. This may just be a canard. I've heard the assertion repeated frequently, but don't know anyone, personally, who has ever been subjected to any such treatment at the hands of the authorities.
88. Liberals blindly accept anything written by liberal professors, liberal news analysts as fact.
FT: True. Liberals believe in liberalism, or they wouldn't be liberals, would they?
89. Liberals have created Food Police to make sure you can’t be served what they deem bad for your health or too great a quantity.
FT: True. Mayor Bloomberg, New York City's Nanny-in-Residence, comes most easily to mind when searching for an example. There are thousands of others just like him –– and worse –– waiting in the wings.
90. Liberals want to abolish states rights and put everyone under the direct control of an increasingly strong central Government whose policies are bound to become more and more arbitrary and less and less subject to democratic control.
FT: False in the sense that this has never been one of their openly stated aims, but current political trends certainly appear to be moving in that direction. Besides, state's rights –– as conceived by the Founding Fathers –– were effectively killed off long ago –– by Abraham Lincoln.
91. Liberal activists tend to be fanatical and intensely self-righteous about their pet causes, and thus become quite capable of insane over-reaction when someone disturbs something on the order of a bat cave or the habitat of some rare breed of mouse, but enthusiastically support the right of a mother to kill her unborn baby.
FT: True. Their priorities seem very bizarre, indeed, –– to conservatives.
92. Liberals, who early on were most easily recognized by their rude, disruptive tactics, outlandish appearance, and fiery, accusatory rhetoric have lately become better dressed, and have adopted a more urbane, civilized, blandly reasonable tone to make themselves appear less threatening and more in control.
FT: True. The era of the Coat and Tie Brooks Brothers-Style Liberal has arrived. The ragged, unkempt, ill clad, unwashed, "Mansonesque" look is "out" at last –– but don't let the change in costume fool you. The mentality beneath the new facade has not changed.
93. Liberals have little or no morality, and behave wildly on animalistic impulses, while favoring bizarre, grotesque, obscene and morbidly self-destructive practices.
FT: False. That may be true of a highly visible, highly vocal element among them, but as a broad general statement it is libellous.
94. Liberals would prefer all voting precincts to be set up within 500 feet of a welfare office.
FT: False. That's horse shit!
95. Liberals lend full support to the movies that celebrate extreme violence, Sadomasochism and other perverted forms of behavior, yet try to take away the rights of decent family-oriented people to their freedom of expression, self-determination, and self defense in real life.
FT: False, but given the vile nature of pop culture since the 1960's I can well understand why many would think it the case. Just look at what has happened to the movies and the television industry, if you want proof.
96. Liberals have no qualms about using the graves of gunshot victims like a soapbox to shout anti-gun rhetoric at a nation still reeling and staggering from the shock of sudden tragic loss by violence. This cynical seizure of every sad, regrettable, unsettling event to use as an opportunity to further the liberal advance toward despotism is contemptible in the extreme.
FT: False and True, but again there is a highly visible, highly vocal element among those on the left that make it all too easy to believe it might be true. The second sentence very sadly has much truth in it. "Never waste a crisis" is a well-known motto of the left.
97. Liberals would undoubtedly love to have a GPS implanted in everyone’s hand or head in order to render escape from Big Brother physically impossible.
FT: True. Liberals have been busy attempting to fulfill Orwell's dystopian vision for more than a century.
98. Liberals fully believe in equal opportunity employment for fellow liberals. Non union members need not apply.
FT: True –– at least for unionists –– and most liberals are highly sympathetic to unionism.
99. Liberals would be comfortable with classifying anyone and everyone who refuses to submit to liberal-style Command and Control as a dangerous lunatic who should be relegated to a State-controlled mental institution.
FT: False –– right now –– but it could easily come to that, if liberals continue to hold sway virtually unopposed, as they have since Ronald Reagan left the oval office. Remember, at heart –– and in effect –– they are either crypto-Marxists or "useful idiots" in valiant service thereto.
100. Liberals have no idea the value of money and will spend themselves, their country, and the world into bankruptcy, and the poverty and despair that inevitably must follow.
FT: True –– or so it would appear to non-liberals.
82. false. Maybe what you've noticed is the greater tendency to attempt to convince his audience, something a conservative may be unaccustomed to since one either respects tradition or not. Rational argument has little baring on that.
ReplyDelete83. both cases are breaches of privacy. Dunno about legality but definitely tasteless.
84. Dreams are one matter, reality another. I dream about there being no money, sure. What do you dream about, annuities? If so you're a dull man.
85. It's a bit idiotic to imagine that recent history has no effect on current events.
86. The only reason to control ownership of precious materials is to protect the fiat currency. The intrinsic value of legal tender is the fact that borrowers are obliged repay their loans with it (and lenders to accept it). In my opinion, that's more intrinsic utility than gold, which is close to useless.
87. Isn't it just racial profiling that we want to swear off? I don't think anyone's bothered by the security services keeping extra eyes on eg. radical muslims who own lots of guns.
88. The gullible are evenly distributed. Blind acceptance of trusted sources is as rare among liberals as it is among conservatives.
89. False -- even Bloomberg's regulations are modest compared to the hyperbole. I believe New Yorkers can still buy as much soda as they want.
90. I like the ability for states to disagree, but I don't know how to mitigate the "race to the bottom" effect.
91. see 37.
92. applies to all of politics. In the UK we are invited to select from a parade of slick android facsimiles of Blair with sprayed-on hair and no genitals. [shudder]
93. False, but liberty includes defending the freedom to behave in ways that you don't like.
94. False, but I (we?) do abhor the notion, championed recenlty by some conservatives, of restricting voting rights to those of sufficient income.
95. Bizarre conflation of censorship (speech) and self-defence (code for gun use).
96. applies to politicians.
97. false. Authoritarianism is a conservative trait in the UK.
98. I'm reluctant to abandon the unions -- what would stop the return of the conditions which necessitated their invention?
99. Liberals would like to pass some laws, and then enforce them.
100. Intelligent disagreement about economics is possible. What would have been the outcome of allowing the banks to fail in 2008? Discuss.
Hello, Jez,
ReplyDeleteThanks again for taking the time and trouble ... I do appreciate it, and wish others were as thorough and espectful.
One should "never look a gift horse in the mouth" [Do you use that idiom in England?] but it would have been very helpful (for our readers, if such there be ;-) if you had copied and pasted the statements along with your opinions.
I identified much of it as "false" but largely because the statements were too broad to be taken seriously. I consider it bad form as well as in accurate to make sweeping statements with no qualifications whatsoever. Nevertheless, I would still insist there is at least a grain of truth in most of it.
These reflect for most part the impression roughly half the American population has of "liberals" and "liberalism."
While I have always identified very strongly with Britain, and recognize the predominant influence Mother England had on our Founders, I'm well aware that our two countries -- and our cultures -- are very different. That is to say that your understanding of "liberal" is probably different from outs -- a point you've been good enough to acknowledge.
COLLOQUY BETWEEN JEZ and FT:
ReplyDelete82. false. Maybe what you've noticed is the greater tendency to attempt to convince his audience, something a conservative may be unaccustomed to since one either respects tradition or not. Rational argument has little baring on that.
FT: You meant b-e-a-r-i-n-g, of course, didn’t you? ;-) I think it might be safe to say that at least here in the USA liberals tend to be more vocal, more demonstrative, more “colorful,” more dynamic, -- and far more incisive -- than their conservative counterparts.
83. both cases are breaches of privacy. Dunno about legality but definitely tasteless.
FT: Agreed! I’m glad you recognize the ever-widening breach between legality and morality. Unfortunately, it looks as though privacy will soon be a thing of the past. I don’t believe a specific right to privacy exists in our Constitution, unless you consider the maddeningly vague proscription against “unreasonable search and seizure” to cover that sufficiently.
84. Dreams are one matter, reality another. I dream about there being no money, sure. What do you dream about, annuities? If so you're a dull man.
FT: Why would anyone dream of the elimination of a viable medium of exchange? Would you have us return to the Barter System? Surely you wouldn’t want The State determining what you could and could not eat or the limits of your dwelling space, or the way your home is furnished, would you? Imagine the severe limits that would place on your life. I find the very thought appalling! If you imagine that capitalists “dream” of annuities, you must have a very limited understanding of the vibrant, venturesome, risk-taking, highly creative nature of Capitalism.
85. It's a bit idiotic to imagine that recent history has no effect on current events.
FT: Of course, but it is the interpretation we chose to put on those events that determines our future course while having a profound effect on our quality of life. The Guilt-Shame-Reparations matrix serves no one well, and has been in fact been vastly destructive.
TO BE CONTINUED
COLLOQUY BETWEEN JEZ and FT (Continued)
ReplyDelete86. The only reason to control ownership of precious materials is to protect the fiat currency. The intrinsic value of legal tender is the fact that borrowers are obliged repay their loans with it (and lenders to accept it). In my opinion, that's more intrinsic utility than gold, which is close to useless.
FT: I find your apparent eagerness to turn control of private ownership of anything over to the State -- reasonable though your rhetoric makes it sound -- disturbing to say the least. Living on fiat currency means we are under the direct control of central banks, and thus enslaved to their whims and caprices. No thanks! I much prefer to own land and either build, improve or maintain private dwellings. "Land," as Scarlett O'Hara's father famously said, "is the only thing that lasts." Tangible assets beat theoretical ones every time -- as long as the power to tax thier value away is curbed and possibly curtailed by conservatives in government. You dream of a world devoid of currency. I dream of a world without taxes. That may define the primary difference between us.
TO BE CONTINUED
COLLOQUY BETWEEN JEZ and FT (Continued)
ReplyDelete87. Isn't it just racial profiling that we want to swear off? I don't think anyone's bothered by the security services keeping extra eyes on eg. radical muslims who own lots of guns.
FT: Are you familiar with the government-generated atrocities that took place at WACO and RUBY RIDGE? The rights of patriots and eccentrics should be protected and not abused. However, proven subversives and known members of organized crime syndicates and the like should in my never humble opinion have no rights at all.
88. The gullible are evenly distributed. Blind acceptance of trusted sources is as rare among liberals as it is among conservatives.
FT: True enough. I, myself, have always maintained a deep distrust of established power blocs and entrenched orthodoxies. The trouble is that advocates of Marxian-Communist-Socialist-Progressive-Liberal-Collectivist-Interventionist-Statist thinking have gradually seized power through insidious means and now dominate the culture to an extent I find threatening to many things I and many fellow conservative-libertarians hold dear.
TO BE CONTINUED
88. Liberals blindly accept anything written by liberal professors, liberal news analysts as fact.
ReplyDeleteThis one is particularly true, and damningly so, given their proclivity to reflexively caw "FAUX NOOZ!" any time a conservative opens her mouth.
Appeal to authority is one of their favorite logical fallacies.
My favorite example is how, when the subject of global warming or climate change or whatever they're calling the scam now, comes up.
They shout "SCIENCE!" like the man in the wingback chair from the 80's Thomas Dolby video.
The majority of them who do it wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass.
Science is a mode of skeptical inquiry, not a global consensus caucus.
COLLOQUY BETWEEN JEZ AND FT (Continued)
ReplyDelete89. False -- even Bloomberg's regulations are modest compared to the hyperbole. I believe New Yorkers can still buy as much soda as they want.
FT: Are you not familiar with the tale of The Camel and the Tent? It’s implications are vast, and ought to cause you reexamine some of your bland assumptions about the benevolence of ever-increasing State Control. A review of Animal Farm wouldn’t hurt either.
90. I like the ability for states to disagree, but I don't know how to mitigate the "race to the bottom" effect.
FT: Please elucidate. I honestly don’t know what you mean. But I would disagree that it should be left to The State to mitigate the deficiencies inherent in human interrelationship -- except, of course for the universally-accepted proscriptions against murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, vandalism, extortion and organized campaigns of harassment.
91. see 37.
FT: Well, we could argue all day and far into next year about the relative worth of liberal and conservative priorities, couldn’t we?
92. applies to all of politics. In the UK we are invited to select from a parade of slick android facsimiles of Blair with sprayed-on hair and no genitals. [shudder]
FT: I’m not sure we’re talking about the same phenomenon. Please don’t tell me you prefer the insolence of the gritty, grubby, ragged, unkempt, unwashed look to that of the polished gentleman from Savile Row? }}}}}}}}}}}}SHUDDER{{{{{{{{{{{{ indeed! ;-)
SF: "They shout "SCIENCE!" like the man in the wingback chair from the 80's Thomas Dolby video.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of them who do it wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass.
Science is a mode of skeptical inquiry, not a global consensus caucus."
Does that assessment also apply to Evolution?
Yes, I do turn to science to shore up evidence in any particular subject that requires I do so.
Perhaps I got into that habit because my husband, who received his degree in physics from MIT, has taught me over the years to do so. His caution to me and the children on looking at the evidence and the science behind it on any controversial subject has been very beneficial.
There is no question that the planet is warming.
Liberals hope eventually to make cash illegal, and prohibit the ownership of diamonds, rubies, emeralds, pearls, plus gold, silver, platinum or any other precious metal in more than token amounts.
ReplyDeleteFT: False, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it turned out to be true in the long run. They forbade the use of gold as legal tender a long time ago, and stopped making silver coins with silver in the 1960's. Our currency now has no intrinsic value whatsoever. We live on fiat money.
------------------
Well known liberal Richard Nixon took us off the gold standard.
This one demonstrates the typical fringe right ignorance.
Don't it drag on.
As we all know, of should know by now, Hillary lied and lies without shame or remorse, she has proven herself to be ia pathological liar . We can or we should remember that incident in Bosnian when the snipers were shooting at her, and she and Chelsea had to run for their car, and waht a BS story that was. Only this time, 4 people were murdered.
ReplyDeleteIf Hillary had alerted the Army and took the proper rescue measures perhaps the four men may be alive today. And furthermore, I heard that it may have been the same terrorist’s that were responsible for the Benghazi attact were also involved in the killing of the hostages in Algeria. So we can blame Hillary for that as well. Because if we had prevented one, the other may not have taken place.
As for the hearing, this hearing was a disgusting display of incompetence, there was absolutely NO accountability to be found.. These Senators were shameful, they not only failed, their parties, but the country and the families of these Americans who were MURDERED .
Liberals are Ass Holes, don't agree with me? Just look at Ducky, and Shaw...
ReplyDeleteBut, I'll admit it, they're always good for a laugh.
And lets not forget that liberals support obama.
Liberals want to ban cars, liberals want to ban electricity, liberals want to ban guns, liberals want to ban light bulbs, liberals want to control your life, liberals want to have an internet kill switch, liberals want to tell you how to live, liberals want to tell you what to do, liberals want to tell you what you can eat, liberals want total control, Moochelle Antoinette obama is a hypocrite and a wanna-be Queen, who hates america, obama is a totalitarian dictator, obama loathes america, obama loathes the american people, obama went golfing, while rome burned
COLLOQUY BETWEEN JEZ AND FT (Continued)
ReplyDelete93. False, but liberty includes defending the freedom to behave in ways that you don't like.
FT: Of course, and admittedly fashions change -- as they have throughout history -- but morbidly self-destructive behavior should be roundly discouraged if not positively inhibited. These days the exact opposite appears to be the case.
94. False, but I (we?) do abhor the notion, championed recently by some conservatives, of restricting voting rights to those of sufficient income.
FT: This may be a canard floated by the left. I have never heard of it, and I make every effort to keep abreast of all such things. Now, I admit, that I, personally, would favor limiting the franchise to those who can demonstrate a basic working knowledge of our system and an awareness of who the candidates are, what they advocate, and the standards they at least claim to uphold, etc. We don’t let toddlers vote, so it stands to reason that ignoramuses ought not be given that privilege either. [You weren't by any chance referring to the brouhaha over demanding Official Identification from prospective voters at the polls, were you? That's another branch of the same tree, and I cannot imagine why any person in possession of all his faculties could hinestly oppose it.]
95. Bizarre conflation of censorship (speech) and self-defence (code for gun use).
FT: I said the remarks were ill-phrased, but the well-known tactic the left enjoys of never wasting the opportunity to seize greater power whenever a "crisis" arises is cynical, manipulative and to my way of thinking hypocritical and unethical.
COLLOQUY BETWEEN JEZ AND FT (Concluded)
ReplyDelete96. applies to politicians.
FT: The response given to #95 applies equally to #96.
97. false. Authoritarianism is a conservative trait in the UK.
FT: If that be the case, why then are there many times more monitoring devices per cubic mile in Britain than there are in the USA -- not that we don’t seem eager to catch up asap. Liberals seem willfully blind to the inherent capacity of Centralized Power to become tyrannical -- intrusive, abusive, oppressive, confiscatory, et al. Liberals exhibit an apparent naiveté in their belief that the officials to whom they oh-so-willingly cede power are well and kindly motivated. Never -- ever -- forget that Power Corrupts.
98. I'm reluctant to abandon the unions -- what would stop the return of the conditions which necessitated their invention?
FT: Nothing, of course, beyond the dictates of established custom and the technological advances that obviated former hazards in the workplace. HOWEVER, the pendulum has swung now in the opposite direction. Unions partnered with Big Government have become the abusers, while venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and high level executives have been placed at much greater risk, and now have a much harder time. The Conservative Mind respects the need and recognizes the desirability of maintaining a Balance of Power. Leftists seem to lust after Absolute Power.
99. Liberals would like to pass some laws, and then enforce them.
FT: I’m sorry, but all I can is smile at that, and shake my head in wonderment at your apparent naiveté. I know you are far frm simple-minded, but that sounded like a simple-minded statement to me. ;-)
100. Intelligent disagreement about economics is possible. What would have been the outcome of allowing the banks to fail in 2008? Discuss.
FT: An excellent question. As a grateful member of The Investor Class, I have to say I am grateful the DJIA appears this very day to be getting close to its all time high before the bottom dropped out of everything late in 2008, however I also realize much of our recent gains are illusory -- the result of flooding the economy with this fiat>money we keep talking about. Even though the pain would have been much greater in the short time, I believe our economy would have had a much better chance of gaining a solid footing that would enable real growth and progress to occur. What we are doing, instead, has the effect of taking morphine to mask the pain while blithely ignoring the cancer from which we suffer allowing it to grow and spread. In other words our Economic Engine is running on “fumes.”
Ms. Political Chic,
ReplyDeleteThank you for visiting. It's always good to se new faces here.
While I don't disagree with much of your statement, I don't see how it particularly relates to the topic at hand, do you?
I'd welcome any explanation you'd care to give.
Kurt,
ReplyDeleteThis is, of course, the crux of your criticism:
"Science is a mode of skeptical inquiry, not a global consensus caucus."
Hear! Hear!
Ms. Shaw and I would agree on the need to consult Science, if "Science" were, indeed, what was being consulted. Unfortunately, probably because of the majority of academics in most subjects today qualify not merely as experts in their fields, but also as full-blown leftists, "Science" has become politicized, and is, therefore, no longer reliable on such highly charged issues as Global Warming -- or anything else the left could use to further increase their chances of achieving a longed for death grip on Absolute Power.
Everyone -- and I do mean EVERYONE -- should notice how they reflexively mock, scorn, dismiss, deride and do everything possible to discredit anything that smacks of opposition. That's a dead giveaway in itself.
If leftists were honest -- with themselves -- and the rest of us, they would stop being so defensive and exhibit CURIOSITY instead of CONTEMPT.
Come to think of it that would be a good rule for people of ALL political and religious persuasions to follow, I should think, don't you agree?
FOOD for THOUGHT:
ReplyDeleteThose who object to what-appears-to-be a blanket acceptance of "received wisdom" on the part of conservatives and evangelical Christians, ought to listen to themselves while taking a good long look in the mirror.
Didn't Jez say, he regards uncritical acceptance of ANYTHING to be undesirable?
THINK about that.
Well known liberal Richard Nixon took us off the gold standard.
ReplyDeleteThis one demonstrates the typical fringe right ignorance.
---------
Say what? In 1933 FDR took the country off the gold standard, he was a liberal, I believe. That made it illegal for American citizens to own gold. Was it a crime worthy of capital punishment in the fevered "progressive" mindset? In 1971 Nixon rewrote the rules of the 1941 Bretton Woods agreement which required "the country" to convert foreign held dollars into gold at $35 per ounce of gold. Hardly sound economics fixing a price for gold and then permitting foreign states to convert their hoards of Yanqui paper into an asset which had an intrinsic value.
Not too many real conservatives would recognize Nixon as a paragon of conservative virtue, after he became the sock puppet whose strings were pulled by Nelson Rockefeller. But leftist quacks would likely consider Nelson Rockefeller some sort of conservative, as well, I guess.
I've thought about it for a long time, FT.
ReplyDeleteLeftists in general are well aware of pitfalls and dangers in their positions as well as the serious problems in the Randoid/Libertarian position.
As America and Europe move through some serious issues brought on by the fringe right we on the left wonder when you are going to drop the nonsensical pose of having the answers.
You have nothing of the sort and need to spend a good deal more time in self criticism than you do giving anyone left of Michele Bachmann the freaking tone.
10. When the fringe right position is challenged they feel so threatened they yell louder, censor and indulge in moronic exercises like "the 100 qualities of liberals". Liberals buck up and readjust their thought.
Don't it drag on.
"By now you know
It's not going to stop
It's not going to stop
It's not going to stop
'Til you wise up"
89. Liberals have created Food Police to make sure you can’t be served what they deem bad for your health or too great a quantity.
ReplyDeleteFT: True. Mayor Bloomberg, New York City's Nanny-in-Residence, comes most easily to mind when searching for an example. There are thousands of others just like him –– and worse –– waiting in the wings.
With the FLOTUS commanding the world to just shut up and "eat your peas" and the mayor of the bastion of progressive thought, NYC, enacting a law saying you can't wash your peas down with a "Big Gulp", there is plenty of evidence that there is a particular will to dominate and control existing with the soul of certain folks of the leftist persuasion.
Ironically, in the case of Mayor Bloomberg, a particular group feels it is being "discriminated" against by this by law and wants it to be repealed. Illustrating that even the sanctimonious do-gooder can go too far, too fast. It's better to violate rights and expand the power of the state in more subtle ways that aren't so obvious to the soda swilling MacDonalds regular.
Too many on both the Right and the Left side of the political spectrum are utopianists.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that it is the nature of human beings to try to force other human beings to do what's best and what's for their own good. The problem comes, of course, with the definition of the word "best" and "for their own good."
I find the Food Police to be an interesting manifestation of left side politics. I've never gotten involved in a 12 step program, but it is my understanding that one of the core tenet of such a program is taking responsibility for one's own actions and one's own choices. In America, we have so many food choices; it is up to the individual to make those choices. For example, I go to convenience stores, where a lot of junk food is on display; I don't grab that stuff -- at least, not often. Neither do I drink sodas, but I find it abhorrent that the government wants to limit anybody's consumption of such beverages.
Duck said: Liberals buck up and readjust their thought.
ReplyDeleteReally? I haven't seen that with any of the liberals that I've been around. If anything, I find them perseverating -- and mad as hell when I challenge their worldview.
99. Liberals would be comfortable with classifying anyone and everyone who refuses to submit to liberal-style Command and Control as a dangerous lunatic who should be relegated to a State-controlled mental institution.
ReplyDeleteJust wait until the DSM V is released!
See THIS and THIS, for starters.
We'll all be "classified."
Right Ducky, like you don't come off as having all the answers . . .
ReplyDeleteSo few people anymore can even begin to qualify as "introspective."
Try telling a liberal that the government has absolutely ZERO right/authority to regulate the levels of sodium in privately manufactured foods, and the liberal will stare at you like you've just uttered something in sanskrit.
Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of believing that the government should make our lifestyle choices for us.
84. This response was a pure joke, although it's possible it betrayed something important about me. If it did, it's pretty personal and not much to do with politics.
ReplyDelete85. I don't think reparations is a good idea, but it is a serious one, I found it to be a good exercise to consider it.
86. My point is that the value of gold is theoretical too. Banks are required to accept legal tender as service to their debtors' loans. No-one is similarly obliged to accept gold as payment for anything. I can't imagine any disaster which would rob legal tender of its value but leave gold's in tact.
87. That, minus the final sentence, is the principled position, which I admire but can't accept in light of the real threats of terrorism our governments must resist.
88. I avoid awful news sources so I don't have a sense of the balance of biases operating in my country, let alone yours. Right wing news sources are obvious and notoriously crooked. I don't believe the kind of nonsense I've seen clips of provides balance, it just polarizes everyone.
89. I don't assume benevolent ever-increasing self control. I just fail to recognise the scare story portrayed by the Right in what modest measures Bloomberg has actually enacted, that I am aware of. Have I missed a reg., or are you worried it's the thin end of a wedge?
90. The race to the bottom.
92. I don't need my politicians to be beautiful. I'd probably rather have a nerd, but electoral pressure is towards the bland and the slick, and that doesn't just apply to appearances. Voters demand cookie-cutter leaders with no ideas, just an oily management style that feels like "leadership" -- an empty suit with a bedside manner.
94. It was floated by Z at westernhero.
Who sets the exam that voters have to pass?
95. I agree: cynical and unethical. It's one of the ghastly consequences of the high-velocity sensationalist news cycle we've been developing this last few decades.
96. I don't deny that the cameras have proliferated, just saying that it's been presided over by a series of right-wing home secretaries (yes, even the Labour ones -- this is a level of detail which I don't expect to matter to anyone outside the UK).
98. A balance of power is just fine by me. Actually, I like cooperatives best, especially for small companies -- puts everyone on the same side.
99. I admit my stamina was starting to flag at this point. I should have said: false, but of course certain reforms a liberal administration would require enforcement. I don't expect sectioning under the mental health act to be used for any of this.
SF: Science is skeptical, not cynical. Unfortunately politicians aren't scientists, so they are in the position of asking scientists for advice -- appeal to authority is a necessary shortcut. It isn't really fallacious because the science is not secret and other scientists are invited to challenge it. For the non-scientist the proper question is "What should we do with the advice?"
ReplyDeleteIf you weren't an engineer, but 99 out of the 100 engineers told you that a bridge over a ravine wasn't safe, would you continue driving your Hummer over it while ranting loudly about the nature of consensus? (Friendly mockery, surely I've earned the right after absorbing this entire list!)
Jack, like I said I understand your sentiments.
ReplyDeleteTry telling a liberal that the government has absolutely ZERO right/authority to regulate the levels of sodium in privately manufactured foods
ReplyDelete--------
Don't be a freaking dunce Camwell.
No such ruling has been made.
This freak out that the fringe right is going through really should embarrass them.
The only legislation is in NYC so if you want to argue that municipal governments don't have the regulatory authority ten go to it.
Otherwise you're just reminding us what a bunch o childish sophists libertarians are.
Damn you people are freaking drama queens. And uniformed ones at that.
A most revealing exercise, indeed!
ReplyDeleteThanks to all who responded to the call.
~ FreeThinke
Please submit to psychological and informational testing asap. I can help you find a university that might be interested in your brain.
ReplyDeleteYou are so true of an archetype that it is truly frightening.
Have you looked in the mirror lately, Junior?
ReplyDeleteIf you weren't an engineer, but 99 out of the 100 engineers told you that a bridge over a ravine wasn't safe, would you continue driving your Hummer over it while ranting loudly about the nature of consensus?
ReplyDeleteThat would depend upon the engineer (or architect). Case in point, Frank Lloyd Wright. Note the column test photo. For the vast majority of engineers and architects wouldn't approve his plans...
It's called ousia aphanēs.
ReplyDeleteThese Radical Marxist like Barack “The Messiah “ Obama doesn’t obey any laws or the Constitution , and he has absolutely no intentions of abiding with the American political system of checks and balances. And who knows, maybe he doesn’t even understand it. He has the same agenda as the Marxist Lenin and the Dictatorship of Hugo Chavez. Though it sounds strange to say it, radical Leftists like Obama are simply unable to comprehend the idea that they just might not know and be right about everything that people who disagree with them not only have the right to do so, because in Socialist Dictatorship things like that are unheard of. Yes, the will of the people here in America calls for a system of checks and balances, but Obozo will just ignore it
ReplyDeleteAh Wilderness!
ReplyDelete--------> Katharine Heartburn
To the site owner. Please put an warning saying "SWINE" in large flashing letters above all your articles that refer Liberals as it seems many Americans are clearly too dumb to figure it out by themselves.
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton’s shouting, and laughing, at the recent hearing was absolutely the most deplorable actions and statements ever made by an American "diplomat" in American history. Hillary Clinton is a bloated pig who should keep her fat mouth shut. BTW did she gain like 80 pounds in the last two months?
I am DEEPLY ashamed for her and our country for this extreme stupidity and blatant arrogance. She is a disgusting pig in every sense of the word and I hope the world does not judge all Americans by this swine.
This is proof positive she and Obama are the real terrorists who will kill before they try to support a due LEGAL process.
This is WRONG by every measure. If Obama does not relieve her of her position he is a guilty as she is.
Obama has been a very unsuccessful president whose plan is to destroy America. WAKE UP, liberals and undecided! If you keep sleeping, there won't be a free America left.
ReplyDelete@ Shaw: Perhaps I got into that habit because my husband, who received his degree in physics from MIT, has taught me over the years to do so. His caution to me and the children on looking at the evidence and the science behind it on any controversial subject has been very beneficial.
ReplyDeleteThere is no question that the planet is warming.
Science indeed is a light in the darkness, when practiced with humility ans skepticism.
Al Gore's Global Medicine Show is a fraud based upon sloppy science.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1365519/
His conclusions ran ahead of solid science, and in quiet moments, away from the cameras, the real scientists will acknowledge that.
Yes, perhaps the earth has warmed (measurement methodology is called into question).
But it has warmed before, and it has cooled. Indeed, historical records (tree rings, biological evidence, anecdotal historical records, etc) suggest that the earth's "temperature" has never been static.
Furthermore, no one has shown that throwing trillions to the UN so they can mismanage the funds and kick up their corruption to new levels would actually put Mother Gaia's thermostat back to the right temperature. And by the way, just what is the correct temperature for the earth?
So, while I admire the left's appreciation of "science," I observe that their ability to identify charlatans is nonexistent.
Hint #1: Al Gore refuses to debate his critics. That should be a flashing red siren with klaxon horns going off.
The Himalayan glacier story was included in error in the 2007 IPCC report. It shouldn't have been included. However, it was buried in volume II, didn't make it to any of the summaries and I'm unaware of anyone reproducing it for mainstream consumption, even Al Gore (I haven't seen his movie).
ReplyDeleteLet's not overlook that we do have decent measurements (from satellites) showing the glaciers' arial coverage shrinking. These glaciers are vital to the several million Chinese who drink its melt water.
Real scientists are acutely aware of the heightened PR environment, where unguarded remarks to journalists WILL BE misused, in fact they'll even misquote you if they feel like it. Many of the scientists who used to give interviews were unaccustomed to this kind of hard-ball, so have withdrawn.
Are there any data which show no rising trend in temperature through C20? I'm not aware of any. "measurement methodology is called into question" -- well sure, I can think of things we could have done better over the last 150 years of gathering data, what do you have in mind.
Climatologists never claimed a static temperature, that's a straw man. C20 is different because
a) rate of temperature rise and
b) temperature rise lags CO2 increase, not the other way round as suggested by the prehistoric records.
Prediction's hard, but the IPCC have a handful (less than a dozen or so) of scenarios.
There's no "right temperature", but I'd prefer a climate that doesn't change so quickly it causes a mass extinction event.
Why fixate on Al Gore? I for one couldn't give the tiniest shit about him.