Why Liberals Lie About What They Believe
- 06-27-2008, 12:25 PM
Why Liberals Lie About What They Believe
Why Liberals Lie About What They Believe
Friday, June 27, 2008
Once you've watched liberals long enough to understand how they think -- scratch that, how they feel -- they become extraordinarily predictable.
To begin with, the liberal agenda is, in many respects, the same as it was in the thirties. Whether you call it communism, fascism, socialism, liberalism, or progressivism, the only real difference is how much they believe they can get away with, the way they sell it to people, and the latest trendy name for what they believe.
So, once the liberals pick a policy from their stale program to push, the next step is to get it implemented. This is where liberals have problems because whether a policy makes sense, is practical, or actually improves people's lives is of secondary importance to them. What is important to liberals is whether supporting or opposing that policy makes them feel good about themselves.
This is why liberals continue to support dysfunctional policies that have been failing miserably for decades and why they often oppose common sense programs that have been proven to work time and time again -- because it isn't about whether it works or not, it's about how it makes them feel.
In other words, a liberal will almost always prefer a policy that's extremely expensive, is difficult to implement, helps almost no one, but seems "nice" -- to a policy that is cheap, simple to implement, extremely effective, and seems "mean."
However, since most Americans make decisions about policies based on whether or not they believe the policy makes people's lives better or worse, liberals have had to become habitually dishonest about what they believe and want to do to get their ideas put into action.
This is a point worth stressing because many people who aren't familiar with politics believe that conservatives and liberals are simply flip sides of the same coin and therefore, approach issues the same way. However, conservatives genuinely believe that this is a center-right country. That's why conservatives have no qualms about being publicly labeled as conservatives and it's part of the reason why we're much more honest than the Left -- because we believe that a majority of the American people generally agree with us and share our values.
So, those of us on the Right spend our time trying to explain to the American people what we really want to do, while the Left spends its time trying to hide what it really wants to do from the American people.
Because of this, when liberals don't feel that the political winds are blowing in their direction, not only will they generally avoid discussing the things they believe, they will typically deny that they believe them at all.
Additionally, liberals go to bizarre lengths to tilt the political playing field in their favor. They move into the mainstream media so that they can tip what are supposed to be "objective" news stories in their favor. They get into positions of power in our educational system so that they can teach kids liberal propaganda before they're old enough to know better. They uniformly support judges who care nothing about the Constitution as long as it moves liberal ideological goals forward. Even the Left's support of illegal immigration is rooted in the desire to bring in millions of poor people from socialist countries who are more likely to vote Democratic. If they can't convince the American voters they're right, then they'll just bring in some new voters.
More disturbing is the Left's ever-increasing reliance on what are commonly thought of as fascist tactics. Liberals at college campuses attempt to disrupt conservative speeches and the Democrats want to try to drive conservative talk radio hosts off the air with the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives like Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter have been targeted criminally for political reasons and there's even talk of trying to jail members of the Bush Administration over policy differences after they're out of office. Ideological soulmates of modern liberals -- like Stalin, Lenin, and Mao -- would certainly approve of those tactics.
Still, even though this is a center-right country, we do have political cycles and there are times when those cycles favor the Left. When that happens and the Lefties start to get a bit more confident, usually a few liberals at the edges will start talking about what they want to do. At that early point, most other liberals will still vehemently deny their ideological goals to the public out of fear that it will prevent them from getting into power.
However, when the Left gains enough strength to be capable of getting one of the policies they favor implemented, all the liberals who previously denied that they supported it will unapologetically shift on a dime and vote for it en masse -- while they rely on their ideological allies in the media and the fact that many Americans are ill informed about politics to cover their tracks.
So, if you want to know what liberals want to do, their words mean absolutely nothing because lying about their agenda has become as natural to them as chasing a cat is to a dog.
Instead, what you have to do is watch what other liberals have done when they have come into power. Look at Canada, where conservatives are being put on trial for hate crimes because they've dared to criticize Muslims. Look at European countries, where they have socialistic economies, sky high tax rates, rigid speech codes, and overweening nannystates. You can even look at liberal enclaves in the United States like Berkeley and San Francisco, where members of the military are treated like pariahs and they boo the national anthem.
If you believe the liberals in Berkeley, France, Canada or for that matter in the bowels of the Daily Kos or Huffington Post, are significantly different than, say Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, you are kidding yourself. The only differences are in what they think they can get away with and how honest they are willing to be about their agenda.Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html
- 06-27-2008, 04:42 PM
Appeal to spite: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party
06-27-2008, 07:34 PM
06-27-2008, 07:41 PM
06-27-2008, 08:37 PM
Terrible thread. Go sit on Bush's lap for a while.. By the way that picture of you in your avatar looks alot like him.
06-30-2008, 10:27 AM
Looks like some folks may resemble the remarks.........bpmartyr - you've found a couple.
Quite honestly - its tough to find anything in that article that can't be backed up by facts. So - cry foul if you like - but without facts to disprove the allegations within - criticism of the article and author are unwarranted.
06-30-2008, 10:41 AM
You don't have to refute 'opinion' those are far from facts and i'm not a liberal.
Perfect example of what flows all through that Oped. You can pretty much replace liberal with conservative and get the same outcome.To begin with, the liberal agenda is, in many respects, the same as it was in the thirties. Whether you call it communism, fascism, socialism, liberalism, or progressivism, the only real difference is how much they believe they can get away with, the way they sell it to people, and the latest trendy name for what they believe.
06-30-2008, 10:43 AM
So back up every opinion with the fact that supports it and then we can work on whether or not it's valid or not. Until then it's all opinion.Quite honestly - its tough to find anything in that article that can't be backed up by facts
06-30-2008, 10:57 AM
06-30-2008, 11:10 AM
06-30-2008, 11:15 AM
My opinion is that most politicians, regardless of type, will run on platforms built into the system over what they truely believe or practice themselves. Most people I know fall part into liberal and part in to conservative.
As an example:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... on24m.html
Woman details abortion, relationship with "pro-life" congressional candidate
A woman who dated congressional candidate Mike Erickson seven years ago said she asked him directly whether he wanted to have a baby. He shook his head...
By Janie Har and Steve Mayes
Newhouse News Service
A woman who dated congressional candidate Mike Erickson seven years ago said she asked him directly whether he wanted to have a baby. He shook his head no, she said, and paid for her abortion.
In interviews with The Oregonian newspaper, the Oregon City woman said she met Erickson in September 2000 and that she had the abortion in January 2001. They saw each other afterward, she said, even going on a trip to Mexico in March, before the relationship ended. She spoke on the condition that only her first name, Tawnya, be used.
Erickson agrees that he gave Tawnya $300 for medical help, and a ride to a doctor's office, but said he didn't know she was pregnant or planned to get an abortion.
Erickson, a Lake Oswego businessman, is the Republican candidate in Oregon's 5th Congressional District and is running on an anti-abortion platform. The charge that he provided money to Tawnya nearly derailed his campaign for the May 20 primary and could hobble his chances in the Nov. 4 general election against state Sen. Kurt Schrader, D-Canby.
Tawnya, now 34, recalled sitting with Erickson that January, parked across from the abortion clinic.
"I asked him, 'Are you sure you don't want a baby?' " she said. "He shook his head. I opened the door, got out bawling and crossed the street and walked up to the clinic."
Erickson, 45, said he dated Tawnya "for a couple of months." He told The Oregonian he didn't remember many details about their relationship, including where they met or when they dated. He said she betrayed no emotion during the car ride.
"Did I pay for an abortion? Absolutely not," Erickson said.
"She was having some financial troubles," he said. "She asked for some money to go have a doctor's appointment — not knowing what that was — and whatever happened, happened, I guess. I didn't even know she had an abortion."
Erickson has campaigned on a strict anti-abortion platform that favors abstinence education and adoption over abortion. His opponent in last month's primary, Kevin Mannix, spotlighted the abortion story in a mass mailing to voters a week before the election. Mannix did so without Tawnya's knowledge or consent.
Tawnya reluctantly agreed to talk after repeated requests from The Oregonian. She said she was motivated in part by seeing Erickson tell his version to television reporters before the primary election.
"I'm just sick to my stomach watching him be interviewed on the news completely lying about everything," she said.
The record shows an abortion was performed Jan. 30, 2001. She paid $300.
The record also shows she was accompanied by Kristi Oetken, identified on the form as her best friend.
Working single mom
Tawnya was 26 years old when she met Erickson, then 37.
She was a single mom of a 3-year-old girl, earning $13.77 an hour at a Milwaukie, Ore., warehouse and living in a small apartment. She let her ex-boyfriend move in to help care for their daughter.
Erickson prospered as president of AFMS, a fast-growing business that advises companies on ways to lower their shipping expenses.
They met at Mount Angel's Oktoberfest in September 2000, according to Tawnya and her friend Joy Johanson, who was there. Erickson handed her his business card. His title — president — impressed her. She called him.
They dated, Tawnya said, and spent time on his houseboat at Portland's Macadam Bay Club, cooking meals and playing hide-and-seek with her daughter.
She couldn't recall exactly when she learned she was pregnant or when she told Erickson. But she did tell him, she said.
"I just remember him being fairly solemn about it. He didn't tell me I had to get an abortion. He didn't force me," Tawnya said.
But he also wasn't going to marry her, she said, and she didn't want to raise another child on her own.
She scheduled the appointment and said she asked Erickson to take her there. He stopped at an ATM to withdraw $300 to give her. During the drive, he told her that because of work he couldn't stay, she said.
Oetken held her hand during the procedure and drove her home afterward.
Johanson, who worked with Tawnya at the time but hasn't stayed in touch, said she never spoke to Erickson about the abortion. But Johanson was relieved when Tawnya told her that Erickson would take her to the clinic and pay for the procedure.
"He took her and dropped her off, so she started freaking out," Johanson said. "It enraged Kristi that he just ditched her like that."
The abortion first cropped up two years ago when Erickson ran against U.S. Rep. Darlene Hooley, a Democrat who is retiring after her current term.
Tawnya, a registered Republican, said she received a campaign flier with a photo of Erickson next to a baby, touting his endorsement by the anti-abortion group Oregon Right to Life.
The mailer made him out to be "some sort of safe haven for babies, and honestly, it made me sick," she said.
She called Oetken, who sent an e-mail to several news outlets calling Erickson a hypocrite and offering to tell their story. The e-mail was copied to Erickson and Hooley.
Erickson denied the allegation in a statement to reporters who inquired about Oetken's e-mail.
No news stories appeared. Tawnya said she wasn't ready to talk about her abortion then.
He tells different story
Erickson gives a far different account of events.
He said he thinks that a week or two before the appointment, Tawnya called asking for help with money to see a doctor. A day or two before the appointment, he said, she called to say she had car troubles and needed a ride.
He said he didn't ask her why she needed to see a doctor, saying he didn't want to pry. "I knew her pretty well but not like — it wasn't my girlfriend — but it was somebody that I had a relationship with," Erickson said.
Erickson didn't wait around. "She said her friend was picking her up and they were going to do something at the mall, or something like that."
Erickson said that he does not remember seeing Tawnya again after she left his car.
"I think we talked on the phone once or twice [afterward], and none of this ever came up. [We] never dated again," Erickson said.
The relationship ended, he said, when he learned she was sharing her apartment with her ex-boyfriend.
But Tawnya and Johanson said Erickson accompanied them on a Mexican getaway in March 2001, after the abortion. They showed documentation and photos of the trip.
Erickson said he believes the trip took place before the medical appointment, but he couldn't provide a date.
"She flew down there with her girlfriend. I was there with three other friends. It happened to be we were down there around the same time. That's true," he said
Similar Forum Threads
- By EasyEJL in forum PoliticsReplies: 8Last Post: 09-24-2008, 09:32 PM
- By Jayhawkk in forum PoliticsReplies: 1Last Post: 09-09-2008, 05:02 PM
- By SureShot in forum General ChatReplies: 122Last Post: 03-07-2008, 12:16 PM
- By CNorris in forum PoliticsReplies: 24Last Post: 06-24-2007, 11:40 AM