Today I found some must read material that I need to share with you.
Recently I added Fuzzy Logic to my blog roll. The owner of Fuzzy Logic, She of the Fuzzy Slippers or Fuzzy for short, has delivered an absolute stinger of a letter to the leftists who wish to attempt mockery as a form of political debate. She takes them to task in an inspiring, logical, and fact filled verbal assault that is polite yet to the point.
Without further adieu:
Dear Radical Progressives,
Hi there, my name is Fuzzy, and I'm a patriot, tax payer, free citizen of these United States. I wanted to take a few moments to explain a few things to those of you on the shrill, hate-filled, mean-spirited, thoroughly loony far far left, things that I'm pretty sure you cannot grasp, but I will try nonetheless.
1. Calling Tea Party patriots vile and crude names is (well, yes, vile and crude, but also) silly. You explode our numbers with your out of touch ridicule, that darned Alinsky magic just isn't working anymore. And you know why? Because we get it. You think we're wing nuts, whackos, blah blah blah. Shrug.
For your crazy, hate-filled raging to make any difference at all, two things would need to be true: I.) That we care, and by this I mean, that we are bothered enough by and/or shamed by your name-calling into stopping our resistance, into slinking into some PC "time out" corner. Oops, we're not. And II.) That you are making a difference to our detriment, and by this I mean that you are attracting an audience for and succeeding in your attempts to marginalize and demonize us. Oops, you're not. You're sitting in an enormous, once-overflowing auditorium, spewing venom, and you don't seem to notice that a steady stream of people are filing out and rejecting your message.
2. Sit down and take a deep breath, this one may sting: Saying that we are "against change" is not an insult. It's simple fact: we own it and are proud of it. We are against "change." We think that your brand of "change" is not only restrictive, anti-American, and substantively socialist but that it's also exceedingly dangerous to this country and to its people.
Your "accusing" us that we are against "change" is like "accusing" someone of being patriotic or of loving their family or their God. You sound thoroughly silly when you say it. So yeah, I'm against "change." Very much so. And?
By the way, all the variations of this--that we want the status quo, that we want to "go back"/"regress," etc.--are not only untrue but equally ineffective. As always with progs, the only way forward is your way, and as I've just explained, we reject progressive "change" and the horrifying "fundamental transformation of America" that you have in mind.
3. Thinking that it's a hurtful "accusation" that we want to block/obstruct/just say "no" to healthcare "reform." Silly rabbits. Of course we want to block it. It's a complete disaster and will do nothing but explode costs and raise taxes, while vastly expanding the size, power, scope, and reach of government. Not something I want to see happen. There are a few good things in the healthcare bills in the House and Senate. Take them out, type them up neatly on a page or two, run it through the CBO, and then we can talk about portability and tort reform. As is? We oppose it, want to block it, say "no" to it, and will do all we can to obstruct its passage. Yay us!
I definitely recommend Fuzzy as someone to check in with frequently. Fuzzy's blog can be found on my blog roll in my sidebar.
29 comments:
Solomon, I love Fuzzy Too! This is the best letter ever. I linked her in my post of yesterday, so we are geniuses!
Thank you so much, Soloman (this post made me *blush*!). You rock! :D
Right on, Bunni! I saw your comment.
Did you see my post of Glenn Beck's special about the Progressives? I know you've mentioned you don't have Fox News... you're going to want to watch this one sometime.
Plus, you might be interested in reading the comments... I had a comment from a young lady who's seventeen... she had some interesting things to say about the state of today's educational system.
I also had a comment from a leftist who thinks we should give equal time to the Progressive agenda. I had a couple of things to say to her...
Hope you are well!!
Fuzzy -
I loved your letter. I'm always glad to share the good work of a great Patriot! I hope I send a good number of people to read it, it's worthy!
Leftist here. Interesting to get more insight into why some oppose the healthcare bill and "change." Makes sense want she advocates, pieces of it, and the only reason Congress can't seem to do that seems to be because major corporations won't make money off of it. I'm for tort reform and thereby reducing the insurance rates for doctors, if they meet high standards (we don't rank very high for healthcare).
I want names of the so-called hate-filled left, because I oppose that. Most of the liberals I hear are insulting Democrats. And I also oppose being villified and insulted just because I have a liberal perspective. Nobody fits all the stereotypes of "liberal" and "conservative." I don't think conservatives or liberals are idiots, or inhumane. Of course you think your ideas are better than ours are. We feel the same way about you. You accuse us of believing the only way is our way; well so do you (of course). You are not victims of us, but you act like it; most of America elected Obama. We're not going away, nor are you, so it would be nice to learn how to respectfully disagree and actually get things done for the health of our businesses and families. You're the people who are making me think this country is in trouble because you're making me, instead of greed and corruption, your enemy.
I was there myself ... Fuzzy Slippers NAILED IT !
Thanks for the link. I'm off to check 'er out!
@ Urban Pink, as you seem to be commenting on my post, I thought I'd jump in here (hope you don't mind, Soloman). This open letter is addressed to "radical progressives" and not to "liberals" or to people who lean left. Heck, I'm a social liberal on a lot of issues. There is a difference, a pretty clear one I would think, between the radical progressive far far left and the people who are democrats who lean left. Because I was not addressing you (unless you are a radical progressive, in which case I was), I'm not sure how to respond to your points. They simply don't address my points at all, nor do they reflect understanding of my points. I was clearly ("Dear Radical Progressives" . . . to those of you on the shrill, hate-filled, mean-spirited, thoroughly loony far far left") talking to a specific audience and not, as you seem to think (?), painting all liberals with a broad brush. Just all radical progressives.
By the way, I'm not really a fan of greed, but it seems to me that it's an acceptable problem to have to cope with in a free market capitalist system. So much better than the socialist alternatives as far as I'm concerned. Someone else's greed is not my problem, unless they set their greedy, power-grabbing sights on my nation, its Constitution, and its people. Then all bets are off. That's greed I cannot and will not tolerate.
I'm not opposed to people earning a profit, even an enormous one; indeed, anything someone earns is and should be theirs. To do with as they see fit. It is not the government's role to legislate morality (greed is not illegal, some manifestations of it may be, but greed itself is not and should not be a crime).
"Most of America" may have elected BO, but "most of America" now, at least according to polls--including Gallup, do not support his agenda. If the election were held again today, there is no doubt in my mind that he would lose. Resoundingly.
I do agree, however, that there is no way to reconcile the fringe left's progressive agenda with those of us who are center and/or center right. That is the exact point of my post. I have no desire to compromise with progs because I see their agenda as (and I state this quite clearly as well) anti-American and a threat to our constitutional rights, our very republic. I'm not interested on compromising the foundational principles of my country, nor my own principles. That's not an option.
Liberals, moderates, and conservatives can probably reach some sort of compromise on many issues, one that will not violate and undermine our Constitution, that's the role and function of Congress in part. Radical progressives have no place at that table. Period.
Pink..
You want names of the hate-filled left? That's easy.
Keith Olbermann. Rachel Maddow. Arianna Huffington and just about every writer on Huffington Post (and trust me, I read that blog a lot). Markos Moulitas. Chris Matthews. Anderson Cooper. Janine Garofalo. Sean Penn. Tim Robbins. Kathy Griffin. Bill Maher. Joy Behar.
Those are the easy to name, off the top of my head hate-filled ones. Those are the people that think it's funny to call Patriotic Americans "tea-baggers" - which, if you don't know, if a term for when a man dangles his scrotum into the mouth of another. Very fucking funny, right?
Those are the ones that think it's funny to call Sarah Palin "Caribou Barbie" and completely disrespect her, regardless of the fact that she is the mother of five, a college graduate, was on a PTA, was mayor of a city, and governor of a state - and turned against her own party to root out corruption.
Even though that is not always what is politically expedient, it is the right thing to do, yet they won't even acknowledge it. Instead, they focus on the fact that the RNC took her shopping and told her she needed to "look the part," and then again won't discuss the fact that after the campaign she donated all that clothing to charity.
I have not slandered you personally. If you have an American liberal perspective (which I suspect is the case) then you and I probably have more in common than you realize. It is the radical element - the 5-10% of the far left that I do take issue with and will not negotiate with.
when Keith Olbermann tries to pull numbers out of the air claiming "X number of people died today because we don't have healthcare" I must take issue, because the truth is that we have a great health care system in America, and no one is denied care. Yes, it is expensive, but that is largely due to the very people who are in power today claiming the system needs to be fixed - trial lawyers. Obama, Michelle Obama, Bill, Hillary, Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards, and so many others from the left... trial lawyers, and they will not discuss tort reform. Do you see the issue there?
I don't think that my way is the only way, but I know this much.. I used to consider myself more liberal, largely because I didn't understand the value of our founding and our history.
Since I've come to understand how and why, and at what great sacrifice our nation was founded - I know that we have been bestowed with a wonderful set of values that work. They are the best of the best ideas from centuries of experimentation, come together to create a nation that in two centuries has given the world more than the world had seen in the past 5000 years of human existence.
I highly recommend you read The 5000 Year Leap, it's a wonderful explanation of why America is great, and will help you understand more about why Conservatism works.
Odie - darned right she did!
Tammy - gladly. Saw your comment on her page too... awesome!
Fuzzy -
You're welcome to defend Conservatism here any time you'd like.
My thoughts and / or additions to your comments, if I may - and since it's my blog I will.. lol..
Greed can be destructive, but greed is desire, and desire is motivation. I agree with your general principle, that it is "an acceptable problem," and when our system works correctly it is largely kept in check. There are, of course, exceptions... but that's life in a nation of over 300 million people with individual liberty.
Today on Hardball they talked about a poll which stated that during Obama's State of the Union, Economy needs to be topic #1, health care #8. That speaks volumes to what America thinks of Obama's first year, since it's been almost all health care, all the time.
Again - saw that on Hardball. Chris Matthews. Tingle up the leg. "My job is to help this presidency" Chris Matthews.
"There is no way to reconcile the fringe left's progressive agenda with those of us who are center and/or center right."
I second that. I will also say that I heard Glenn Beck say this past week that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have done more damage to "Progressive" as an acceptable term than has been done in the past 100 years. We should be on the look out for "Populist" to come forward amongst the far leftists, or they'll simply regress back into the shadows of "liberal."
Final thought... the other day, Obama discussed the fact that seven different presidents have tried to pass health care in some nationalized form. Seven tries, seven failures. You don't suppose by now it might become evident that America does not want nationalized health care? It is completely un-American.
LOL, Soloman, it is your blog, and I love it here. So homey and welcoming and intelligent! :)
Greed. Look, that's human nature, some people are greedy, some people act on that, others don't. There is no way to legislate that without impinging on the rights of every American, and that is not tolerable. I am opposed to the legislation of morality (yep, including reversing Roe v. Wade. But I'm not turning in my conservative card, so don't even think about it! heh). We have laws and regulations to deal with "greed gone wild" (i.e. it leads to illegal actions)--granted, they don't work the same for libs (who somehow seem to forget to pay their taxes or get all confused by TurboTax and who get special deals, but you don't hear the outcry about BO's backroom deals and cozying up with ACORN and the SEIU that you did over Haliburton . . . the double standard is sick-making). But they should work the same for libs as they do for conservatives.
Also, this all out attack on Wall Street is such BS that it makes me want to scream. Did they play a role? Yes. Was it all their fault? Hell no. The government forced a lot of it by its "everyone deserves [a house, healthcare, name your hand-out of the day]." No. Everyone deserves the *opportunity* to EARN those things, not that they be bestowed upon them by others' labors and sacrifices via the government. It's completely un-American on SO many levels. Funny how GREEDY Fannie and Freddie are exempt from BO's attack on banks, huh? Grrr.
And as to the 100-year healthcare argument, I've raged against that on my blog (um, a couple times). They act like that's something to be "solved" not something that should clearly tell them that we don't want it. We didn't want it a hundred years ago, and we don't want it now. It IS un-American, and Americans have rejected it time and again for generations. We, the people, have said NO. But they keep on like it's something that we've all been denied and trumpet it like it's something that they'll "gift" us with. Not if I can help it. And if it does pass, in any form, I will not vote for anyone who doesn't solemnly promise to repeal it. ALL of it, even the parts that Reid thinks he "locked" with a law that it can't be repealed. What is more un-American than making a law that can't be contested, reviewed, or appealed? My God, the founding fathers must be spinning in their graves. Isn't that the sort of nonsense they fled?
And I second your suggestion that Pink and all libs read some American history, and while she's at it, she should probably look at some world history, too. The progs have done a damn good job of making sure that civics and history aren't taught anymore or that what is taught is so slanted and anti-American that it's brainwashing a generation. They're like a 100 year cancer that's metastasized. A little here, an in-road there, and before you know it, "God" is a dirty word (unless it's "Allah"), Christmas should be abolished, and white conservatives are "extremists" who should be monitored for possible terrorism! What the hell has happened to our country?
Scratch that, we know. And I'm done with it all. The PC garbage, the banning of God/religion, the persecution of tax paying, educated, hard-working, middle-class Americans who love their country and don't want to see it destroyed. Done, I say!
So there. :D
Fuzzy - you might be interested to know that Urban Pink has been quite the force on my blog over the past couple of days.
You can find more of our discussion here and here if you're interested.
BTW - I am in full agreement with you about legislating morality, including Roe v. Wade, and this moral stance is where I take issue with the left attempting to legislate dietary intake of any sort. Same concept - individual liberty.
Keeping kids in schools off of soda and eating health is fine, but not having birthday cakes for kids because it will make them fat? Screw that, let them enjoy - they're kids, for Heaven's sake.
About recommended reading... I have not yet read, but have heard it's great - The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes. Also, Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg is on my short list. Both are said by many to tie together a great amount of Progressive history with what we are seeing today.
BTW - Pink, I just looked through your blog for the first time.
We do not have as much in common as I thought. You call my blog a "Cultural Climate of Hate" and recommend after discussing me that people should check out the Southern Poverty Law Center to they can "find the skinheads in your state?"
Regarding bullying... it is interesting to note that all violence that has taken place during any town hall or other event since Obama was elected has been initiated and perpetrated by someone representing the left. I'm just saying...
Next you offer a post about "Considering our Heroes" and offer people like Michael Jackson, Woody Allen, and Mike Tyson?
How about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or Ben Franklin? Maybe our Armed Forces, fire fighters, or teachers who risk their lives to give inner city children a chance at an education? Perhaps children should look first and foremost to their parents as heroes?
Michael Jackson was no hero. He was a troubled individual, a great entertainer... but no hero.
I've gotta tell you, your ideas behind great leaders who have been assassinated, and trying to blame it on the right? Hysterical.
JFK was killed by a Communist-loving psycho, and would be considered a Conservative by today's standards.
MLK was killed by racists (and he was not a left-winger, I gotta tell you).
Bobby Kennedy? again, killed by a whacko, and again - more Conservative in his overall disposition than Progressive, for sure. Also interesting to note that Barack Obama's buddy Bill Ayers dedicated a book to amongst others - Sirhan Sirhan.
And John Lennon? Some whacked out psycho takes out a rock star, and you want to blame the right?
Good God... I wanted to give you an honest chance at a reasonable discussion, but I'm having trouble now even believing you're sincere in your desire for civil discourse.
I will check but I didn't blame the right for killing the left, I just said the left has been killed more than the right. Interesting that you don't think they were progressive since JFK wanted civil rights and a peaceful world, as did MLK. I strongly disagree with how you and Fuzzy define what it means to be a progressive. I see you buy all the propaganda about Ayers, but there's no evidence that know each other well, they've just been in the same place at the same time. But I understand your suspicion because I always suspected the Bush family, too. You're right, I should be more careful about slamming the right, but I stand by what I said. That guy in Philadelphia was a right winger who killed 3 cops and he was a Glenn Beck fan. Glenn Beck uses bullying tactics (blaming a "target," making up lies about them, acting like a victim of them, etc.) Own it. Tell me about the violent left wingers you've heard about, and I'll condemn them, too. Part of our problem communicating is our reluctance to see each other as human, imperfect, and with each having responsibilities. You misinterpreted my blog about Michael Jackson, I was sad that some people see him and other morally corrupt super stars as heroes, I certainly don't. I also believe that people are technically innocent until they are proven guilty, that is American. I was trying to figure out why people loved him so much after he died so my thoughts weren't that clear, I concede. I'm very sincere about a civil discourse with conservatives. Have my comments on your blog seemed any other way? We're discussing people instead of policy.
But civil rights and wanting a peaceful world aren't only progressive (as in liberal) values - that's where you are mistaken. No one wants war, but sometimes it's inevitable. I sincerely doubt there's one single conservative that doesn't want a peaceful world. It's such BS to think ALL conservatives are violent and war-mongers.
Glad to hear that. It's also BS think all progressives are anti-American.
Urban Pink, are you serious? Your statement that progressives "want civil rights and a peaceful world" implies that conservatives do not. Are you sure that YOU understand what conservationism is? From this statement, I'm pretty sure that you do not. Newsflash: conservatives want civil rights and a peaceful world, too. Honestly, is that your "definition" of progressivism?
JFK would absolutely be a conservative by today's standards: he was fiscally conservative and adamantly, vehemently anti-communist. He'd be absolutely horrified by the BO administration and its push for socialism and its massive spending. Please, read a book sometime, turn off MSNBC and try to learn something on your very own.
"Propaganda" about Ayers? Seriously? You do know that he was part of a violent leftist movement that often engaged in violence and that Ayers himself attempted to blow up the Pentagon? You know that, right? It's fact. Truth. Documented. Or are you suggesting, as so many radical progressives do, that the ends justify the means, that violence is an acceptable way to get what you want or to "make statements"?
The list of "heroes" that Soloman writes about is horrifying. Jackson? You do know that he had a penchant for sleeping with little boys? Allen? You do know that he married his own daughter (adopted, but he raised her)? Tyson? You do know that he beats women? These are your heroes, your role models?
You are seriously tweaked. Violent left wingers? How about Ayers fun little group the Weathermen? How about the loony who killed Milk? How about Malcolm X, who advocated violence against the peaceful approach that MLK took? How about the wacko who bit off a Tea Party patriot's finger last summer? How about ALL the protests that take place in association with the G20 summits, wherever they held, and most recently last fall in Pittsburgh? I could go on and on. And on. The main violence that has occurred from the right was the abortion bombings in the 80's. I condemn them wholeheartedly, but the left is the violent side. Why do you think that cops wear riot gear when lefties protest? The police in DC reported that the 9/12 (912) march on Washington didn't leave so much as a scrap of paper on the ground. In Pitt? Broken windows, over turned cars, beatings, arrests. Did you know that? Any of this, actually?
Prog talking point 101: "you believe lies you are told by [insert your favorite conservative: Beck, seems to be yours]. Doesn't the irony strike you that you are talking about things (i.e. crazy Matthews/Maddow/Olbermann talking points) that you don't know a thing about? Doesn't it embarrass you, even a little, to be so ignorant of history (even recent history, like last year)? You might want to understand that there is a distinction between political violence and lone weirdos who commit acts of violence. Political violence is a leftist tactic. Both liberals and conservatives and every other political persuasion commit random acts of violence that are not rooted in their ideology. You do understand that this distinction is significant, right?
@ Urban Pink, continued
If you are interested in civil discourse with conservatives, you really need to make an effort to understand what conservatives stand for. Apparently, you believe that we stand in opposition to peace and civil rights. That's the most absurd thing I've seen in quite a few days (I was watching MSNBC after the Scott Brown victory in Mass or it may have been longer).
I suggest that you get some actual information and try to understand it. I also suggest that you learn a little bit of the history of progressivism and what it really means to America. Progressives are anti-individual responsibility and liberty, they have a long history of "ends justifying the means" approach that has included genocide, mass imprisonment, and the revocation of liberties from free speech to free thought. Look into it. As you don't seem to understand what progressives are, what they believe, how they operate (just as you clearly have no idea what conservatives are about), I would refrain from calling yourself a progressive. You may not like to be associated with them . . . you know, once you learn a bit about them.
Pink... part 1 of 2...
I think Fuzzy covered it all for me very well (and I thank you, Fuzzy - excellent points all) except for one, which I absolutely must clarify:
I found your supposed Glenn Beck worshipping cop-killer story - it's a Twitter-fest by Markos Moulitas of the Daily Kos. The cops were in Pittsburgh, not Philly... and the only sources on the 'net blaming Beck or even suggesting his involvement are Kos, HuffPo, Crooks and Liars, and Think Progress.. to name a few. All leftist blogs, and no reliable news source ever made the connection. (Okay, I'll admit I remember Keith Olbermann ranting about it, but that speaks more to Olbermann than Beck since Olbermann is a regular poster on Kos). Very nice.
You seem to take real issue with Glenn Beck. I understand he at times seems a bit over-the-top, but he's an entertainer as well as a person who wishes to inform Americans about the great history of our Founding Fathers and the evils of the world, some of which are present here in America and wish to destroy this great nation. To his credit, he acknowledges that his show is an opinion show, whereas Keith Olbermann voices his opinion for a solid hour yet calls his show a "News Hour."
You clearly seem not have any understanding of the quality of person Glenn Beck is, and you are clearly taking your talking points from leftist sources that wish to skew your perspective.
I must ask you - have you spent even one week watching Beck's TV show or listening to his radio show in the past six months? Ever for that matter? Based on what you say about him, I doubt you have.
If not, I suggest you take a good look in the mirror, and back off the personal attacks. Then I would like to suggest that you should give Beck an honest week of your time.
If you choose not to, that's fine - I understand. That is your choice.
However, that is not my biggest point.
The one value Conservatism holds most dear which is directly related to this mysterious Philadelphia situation and your opinion of said situation is personal responsibility. Fuzzy mentioned at the endo of her comment the fact (and it is fact) that real progressives are anti-personal responsibility and liberty. True.
Do you recognize that related to your little "Glenn Beck - Cop-killer" fantasy, the most important factor of all is the fact that a person who had free will used that God-given blessing and made a decision on their own? This is called personal responsibility.
You said it yourself - "Part of our problem communicating is our reluctance to see each other as human, imperfect, and with each having responsibilities."
Why do you not live your own words?
I can assure you that many people are influenced by many factors each and every day, but when push comes to shove each and every action we take is our own personal responsibility. Short of a verified case of mental insanity, any perpetrator in any crime acts of his own volition.
Glenn Beck is not inside anyone's head. He has never held a gun to anyone's head. In fact, Glenn Beck is one of the biggest advocates of peace I've ever seen. He speaks more frequently than you'll ever understand of the need to have a peaceful life, go to events and act peacefully and politely and with dignity, and to treat others with exactly the respect and courtesy that one might wish upon himself.
This is how I try to live my life; this is as much as or more than any other reason why I appreciate Glenn Beck. He is a man of God, which I understand may be something that gives you great pause. However, to truly be right with God is first and formost to understand one's own faults and work to better oneself, and to forgive others their trespasses.
I would like to agree with Fuzzy's statement that you would be well served learning more about what Progressive politics are really all about. Obviously I don't know you and can't get inside your head, but I'd wager a dollar against every dime you have to your name that you use the term Progressive because it's what you hear on MSNBC and read on your left-leaning blogs, and you've heard Hillary and Obama use the term.
I believe with all my heart we're doing you a service in suggesting you stop calling yourself a Progresssive until you learn more about what the term really means. Read Amity Shlaes "The Forgotten Man" for some real insight.
Finally... do want to truly understand the hear of a Conservative, and their wishes for our nation? I have a good friend who's written an excellent piece, and I'd like you to read it. click here, and please let me know if you can argue with anything my friend has to say.
Okay, I can't even believe that someone would interpret my heroes to be those three men. I was saying some people find them heroic in that they defend their behavior (Michael Jackson worshipers, Woody Allen defenders, Mike Tyson in Hollywood), but I do not. But then the whole reason I entered this discussion is because I feel that my ideology is being attacked by the right--and was by Glenn Beck in his documentary which I couldn't finish watching. I probably agree with Obama on most things (except Afghanistan).
And Fuzzy, even though you you'd actually negotiate with liberals, you still accuse us of not paying taxes (huh? I think we're the only ones we know that pay our babysitter's taxes, and I know many conservatives who don't). When the rubber hits the road, most people want social security and medicare in their retirement, but this seems to be socialism to you (maybe I'm wrong). I don't yet understand what policies of Obama and opinions of MSNBC are considered progressive/socialist. I have to tell you, just because a conservative author has redefined socialism to mean something evil, doesn't change the general, historical definition of progressive which is just egalitarian reform, policy, not state police. As I stated already, Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, was a progressive.
I have studied American history, Presidential history, world history, black history, women's history and philosophy. Have you? You can be both progressive and fiscally responsible, say, a balanced budget and pay as you go. When you describe progressives, I hear descriptions of fascists or anarchists. Name the progressives for me (I just don't see Obama, Clinton, et al as anti-liberty, anti-individual responsibility) and lots of Republicans and Democrats are "ends-justifies-means" like Bush and Cheney rushing to Iraq (lots of cheap Iraqi oil went on sale about a month ago--to foreign corporations). Mass imprisonments happened in WWII (FDR was a bully) here and McCarthy jailed a lot of "communists." Is your info from Beck's documentary?
I know Ayers was a terrorist (disgusting) but the propaganda was that Obama was just like him/friends with him. I don't want him in our politics either!
The Constitution allows for taxes and the general welfare of our citizens. It does not mention corporations or give them personhood, as the Court recently did. I don't listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann or any MSM cable news crap. It's all biased one way or the other and mostly misinformation. If I knew a killer was influenced by Olbermann, I'd bring my liberal friends attention to that. You all seem unaffected by the fact that a neo-Nazi was a fan of Beck. Just because the MSM didn't pick it up doesn't trump that it was picked up by the Pittsburgh media. And that Beck was helping wacky conspiracies about the "end of the world." I don't blame Beck for the killings, but I think he should take responsibility for feeding wacko conspiracy theories. I didn't know Timothy McVeigh was a neo-Nazi until I visited the Museum of Tolerance in 2004. I had to sit down in shock--I'd always thought he was just anti-Government. I actually visited the memorial in Oklahoma in 2003.
I enjoy The Daily Show and he shows a lot of MSNBC's problems along with Fox. TV is run by rich elitists who help us believe/reflect what ever it takes to make them richer. Our news is nothing like the BBC. We don't learn much about the world at all.
Everyone, please stop accusing me of being anti-God. You're making big assumptions about liberals still. I am very religious and discuss God with my children daily. Much of my politics stem from my religious beliefs and we give a lot to private charities.
Part II
I also believe in personal responsibility; and the principle "don't take it personally, because it's about them," but I also know that we, as a nation, as a people, as a community, share responsibility for each other. When we forget that, people can get severely physically and emotionally hurt. Like when a drunk teenager leaves a party after 1am and dies in a car crash. Is he the only one to take responsibility for that? Sure, in the end he's the only one to die; but couldn't friends, family, and even strangers on the road have saved his life? It is really easy to say we only have responsibility for ourselves. When we spread tolerance and share responsibility for each other all those evil systems (nazism, fascism, totalitarianism, police states) can't take hold of our society. That is why I speak out for the poor, the liberals, the homosexuals, women, and children. Sometimes all we have are the power of words and luck; other people's actions are often beyond our control.
I know a lot of conservatives, but
I'm learning a lot about your values and I appreciate it--especially civil rights, peace, and such
reverence for American history which is refreshing. I will watch Glen Beck next week for a week and I'll see what he says. I think he's very charming and very likable, but most bully's are. I'll look over Amity Shlaes.
Fuzzy, I'll have to get back to you about all your accusations. But let me say this, I volunteered for ACORN in New Mexico and they are simply a grassroots get-out-the-vote organization. I stood in parking lots like Wal-Mart registering voters. It's hard for me to believe conservatives want democracy and are really "anti-elite" when they attack ACORN and the census.
So I think we're in Afghanistan for oil pipelines. What do you all think?
Urban Pink, what do I think? I think there are SO many problems with every sentence here that I don't have the time or interest to respond in full or at length. I will, however, say three things: one, I teach at the university level, and I am constantly appalled by the approach to thinking in higher ed. The short, trite saying is that liberal educators tell you what to think, while conservative educators teach you HOW to think. You can take every "diversity" course under the sun, but if you don't think beyond and learn how to put together what you learn in that and other classes and through your own reading, you don't know anything at all.
Case in point, and my second point, legislating "tolerance" and "shared responsibility" is the shortest, most direct path to loss of liberty, to fascism. The failed multi-cultural experiment is a prime example of that. What one group is it ALWAYS okay to bash and be intolerant towards? (hint: white Christians) That's how forced "tolerance" and "shared responsibility" always play out (though not always against white Christians, so don't get hung up on that example). Shared responsibility MEANS that you have none of your own, don't you understand that? You are not an individual, what you earn, eat, drink, drive, make, say, think, and do are all legislated and managed by government. (Look up "fascism," "totalitarian governments," and "communism." They ALL begin with the "but we do it because we CARE" argument. And they all move from "caring and sharing" to taxes, fines, oppression, imprisonment, and governments murdering citizens who oppose. Always.)
If you are under 30, I will forgive your myopic and limited understanding of basic (logical and historical) facts. As to your question about Beck's documentary, yes, I watched it, but you are aware that it only aired this past Friday, right? I've been saying the same things for years, some for decades.
As to oil. Fact: we import more oil from CANADA than we do from Iraq or from Afghanistan. Ditto Mexico. Seriously, read facts, please. Oil is not and never was an issue in Iraq (I do not, that said, think that we should have made Iraq the priority we did, but it was not about oil. No matter what you read on left-wing blogs. Or, following the oil logic, we should have invaded Canada for its oil? Or Mexico? And if we were there for oil, why do we still get less from there than from Canada? Try .gov data for some insight on our oil imports rather than some liberal blogger, who probably got their ideas from another liberal blogger (as I suspect you did because your "argument" about oil is faulty . . . based on fact). You'll find, too, should you wish to do some quick googling and read facts from a reliable source that we use more of our own oil (from TX and LA primarily) than we do from Iraq/Afghanistan.).
Here's an idea. Before you state anything, do a bit of research and think about what you find out. Challenge every idea you see and find out some facts to formulate your own viewpoint/worldview. You'll be better informed, and you'll made fewer faulty arguments and illogical assertions.
One final thought, Urban Pink, though Soloman covers it well, I want to challenge your assumption that Beck had anything to do with someone shooting police officers. Your logic seems to be that any "fan" of Beck is, because of this "evidence," violent and apt to shoot people in cold blood. Beck, in your scenario, inspires violence and bloodshed.
Here's another fact. One of my friends does cancer research (metastatic cancers)and is trying to find a cure for it; he works tirelessly in his oncology practice, at a local hospital, teaches at a local medical school, and does scientific research. He's a Beck "fan." Based on this evidence, would you argue that Beck is a boon to humanity, someone who inspires scientific research to save lives, empathy, compassion, and altruism?
Fuzzy, what do you teach? I find myself always having to deny your accusations because they are false, but at least we're getting around to discussing something I really care about, finally. Why we're at war. You're right, I didn't look at import statistics for oil. What I know is what we did. We invaded a country with the third biggest, and cheapest, oil reserves in the world. It's even sadder that we, as a nation, didn't benefit from that oil, but BP and China's CNPC did, leaving only 1% of profits (albeit that will make them richer) and no ownership to Iraqis. I'm not sure what BP spends on lobbying every year, but they spent over 3 Million in 2006. Good investment, huh? For a University level professor, you don't leave any room for exceptions to your rules. I have taught at the University level (I am currently a full-time Mom). The ease with which you make false accusations, the annulment of knowledge if it includes diversity, and sweeping generalizations about liberals made me think you were much younger. You accuse me of being illogical without addressing any of my questions or political points. Which argument (that you didn't twist) was a faulty argument? Good luck with that tactic. Oh, and how do you think our military would function without "tolerance" and "shared responsibility." Where is the "public good" the Framers wrote about?
And by the way, I never advocated LEGISLATING tolerance or shared responsibility. I was making an argument about God-given morality.
"What I know is what we did"? If we went there for oil, why didn't we take it? Why didn't we just set up shop and start pumping out oil for our own economy? And for extra income start exporting it to other countries? Your argument about oil makes no sense (i.e. is illogical), what am I twisting?
What, specifically, did I say to you that was a false accusation? Where, specifically, did I say that studying diversity "annuls" knowledge? I suggest that you read, very carefully, what I said before you get defensive and start burbling nonsense.
By the way, stating that Iraq has oil so that must be why we went there is just as ridiculous as saying that Glenn Beck inspires people to shoot cops. Iraq also has deserts and mountains; did we go there for that?
Here's another tip. When you attempt to think, work on putting the pieces together without falling into faulty syllogisms. That is, apparently, all you are capable of:
A man is a fan of Glenn Beck.
A fan of Glenn Beck shot cops.
Therefore, all men shoot cops.
Iraq has oil.
American invaded Iraq.
Therefore, America invades all countries with oil.
D'oh!
Post a Comment