Contemporary Liberalism Explained - Definitively

The actions of conservative law makers says otherwise. I sense no compassion for the working class in them at all while they preoccupy themselves with the tax burden on the wealthy. Conservatism abhors the masses, reflexively resists collective action and has a dim view of democracy itself, how can you say that it is inherently more compassionate in it's cold social Darwinist views?
The rich already pay most of the taxes. You apparently define compassion as how much money you can confiscate are redistribute. The war on policy has been a very long and very expensive lesson on how it doesn't work. But that's libs for you, their ideology is an emotionally driven belief that won't let facts diminish.

Put another way, it's childish.
 
Another "smart" conservative tries to dissect liberal thought with the blunt instrument of conservative thought, and fails. If you want to understand liberalism do not turn to some conservative to whom altruism is an alien concept.
In other words, you'll simply bury your head back up your ass since it hits too close to home to deal with. Everything I read was spot on. Liberalism is driven by emotion, you can't articulate a reasoned response.
Liberalism is driven by emotion, just like conservatism. I prefer the positive higher emotions to the negative primal ones that rule conservative thought. You actually think conservatism operates rationally?
In fact, conservatism is much more rational and practical than liberalism, though what this guy was talking about is not liberalism in its truest form but more to a progressive mindset.

Conservatism is also much more compassionate than the left's obsolete and failed policy of 'comfortable poverty".
The actions of conservative law makers says otherwise. I sense no compassion for the working class in them at all while they preoccupy themselves with the tax burden on the wealthy. Conservatism abhors the masses, reflexively resists collective action and has a dim view of democracy itself, how can you say that it is inherently more compassionate in it's cold social Darwinist views?
Your assignment of intent and belief to make yourself feel better about your poor choices in personal philosophy does not lend credence to those people who are rational.

Making people comfortable in poverty is nothing short of sadistic and cruel. Compassion is measured by what is done to alleviate suffering, not how high your rhetoric can soar. Democrats who profess to care about people show the kinds of compassion that liberalism espouses when they go to their home districts and their cities could be mistaken as a war torn Eastern European city straight from WWII. Where the poverty in their districts hover at 20 to 30 percent or more - decade after decade.

Programs that do nothing but show democrat "compassion" are failures and the only reason they are even enacted is for the votes they bring.

Conservative programs work with the poor (or they would if they were not blocked at every road, and demonized by low information, substandard humans in the democrat party) to help them achieve a measure of self respect, and give them a real imperative to move from government poverty to the dignity of earning your own way. However, it takes work, and it takes a firm hand against the outcry and resistance that is the nature of a person who has been indoctrinated into believing that "Because we are a rich nation, you don't have to strive or struggle any longer"....

Spare us your compassion. This country can ill afford it much longer.
You could have just said "compassion is for pussies" and saved a bunch of typing. When you get an accurate picture of who these programs serve and what they do it gets much harder to justify your outdated welfare queen arguments. What they really do is subsidize low wages that republicans think benefits the "job creators" and make it possible for food stores to exist in poor areas.
 
In other words, you'll simply bury your head back up your ass since it hits too close to home to deal with. Everything I read was spot on. Liberalism is driven by emotion, you can't articulate a reasoned response.
Liberalism is driven by emotion, just like conservatism. I prefer the positive higher emotions to the negative primal ones that rule conservative thought. You actually think conservatism operates rationally?
In fact, conservatism is much more rational and practical than liberalism, though what this guy was talking about is not liberalism in its truest form but more to a progressive mindset.

Conservatism is also much more compassionate than the left's obsolete and failed policy of 'comfortable poverty".
The actions of conservative law makers says otherwise. I sense no compassion for the working class in them at all while they preoccupy themselves with the tax burden on the wealthy. Conservatism abhors the masses, reflexively resists collective action and has a dim view of democracy itself, how can you say that it is inherently more compassionate in it's cold social Darwinist views?
Your assignment of intent and belief to make yourself feel better about your poor choices in personal philosophy does not lend credence to those people who are rational.

Making people comfortable in poverty is nothing short of sadistic and cruel. Compassion is measured by what is done to alleviate suffering, not how high your rhetoric can soar. Democrats who profess to care about people show the kinds of compassion that liberalism espouses when they go to their home districts and their cities could be mistaken as a war torn Eastern European city straight from WWII. Where the poverty in their districts hover at 20 to 30 percent or more - decade after decade.

Programs that do nothing but show democrat "compassion" are failures and the only reason they are even enacted is for the votes they bring.

Conservative programs work with the poor (or they would if they were not blocked at every road, and demonized by low information, substandard humans in the democrat party) to help them achieve a measure of self respect, and give them a real imperative to move from government poverty to the dignity of earning your own way. However, it takes work, and it takes a firm hand against the outcry and resistance that is the nature of a person who has been indoctrinated into believing that "Because we are a rich nation, you don't have to strive or struggle any longer"....

Spare us your compassion. This country can ill afford it much longer.
You could have just said "compassion is for pussies" and saved a bunch of typing. When you get an accurate picture of who these programs serve and what they do it gets much harder to justify your outdated welfare queen arguments. What they really do is subsidize low wages that republicans think benefits the "job creators" and make it possible for food stores to exist in poor areas.
I'll do you even one better.

You don't know what compassion means.
 
The actions of conservative law makers says otherwise. I sense no compassion for the working class in them at all while they preoccupy themselves with the tax burden on the wealthy. Conservatism abhors the masses, reflexively resists collective action and has a dim view of democracy itself, how can you say that it is inherently more compassionate in it's cold social Darwinist views?
The rich already pay most of the taxes. You apparently define compassion as how much money you can confiscate are redistribute. The war on policy has been a very long and very expensive lesson on how it doesn't work. But that's libs for you, their ideology is an emotionally driven belief that won't let facts diminish.

Put another way, it's childish.
Trickle down has to work in some way, it's not like the super wealthy are doing it as advertised. The rich are always all right no matter what the tax structure or regulatory framework, you guys need to shift your focus to the American people at large who are steadily sinking.
 
Liberalism is driven by emotion, just like conservatism. I prefer the positive higher emotions to the negative primal ones that rule conservative thought. You actually think conservatism operates rationally?
In fact, conservatism is much more rational and practical than liberalism, though what this guy was talking about is not liberalism in its truest form but more to a progressive mindset.

Conservatism is also much more compassionate than the left's obsolete and failed policy of 'comfortable poverty".
The actions of conservative law makers says otherwise. I sense no compassion for the working class in them at all while they preoccupy themselves with the tax burden on the wealthy. Conservatism abhors the masses, reflexively resists collective action and has a dim view of democracy itself, how can you say that it is inherently more compassionate in it's cold social Darwinist views?
Your assignment of intent and belief to make yourself feel better about your poor choices in personal philosophy does not lend credence to those people who are rational.

Making people comfortable in poverty is nothing short of sadistic and cruel. Compassion is measured by what is done to alleviate suffering, not how high your rhetoric can soar. Democrats who profess to care about people show the kinds of compassion that liberalism espouses when they go to their home districts and their cities could be mistaken as a war torn Eastern European city straight from WWII. Where the poverty in their districts hover at 20 to 30 percent or more - decade after decade.

Programs that do nothing but show democrat "compassion" are failures and the only reason they are even enacted is for the votes they bring.

Conservative programs work with the poor (or they would if they were not blocked at every road, and demonized by low information, substandard humans in the democrat party) to help them achieve a measure of self respect, and give them a real imperative to move from government poverty to the dignity of earning your own way. However, it takes work, and it takes a firm hand against the outcry and resistance that is the nature of a person who has been indoctrinated into believing that "Because we are a rich nation, you don't have to strive or struggle any longer"....

Spare us your compassion. This country can ill afford it much longer.
You could have just said "compassion is for pussies" and saved a bunch of typing. When you get an accurate picture of who these programs serve and what they do it gets much harder to justify your outdated welfare queen arguments. What they really do is subsidize low wages that republicans think benefits the "job creators" and make it possible for food stores to exist in poor areas.
I'll do you even one better.

You don't know what compassion means.
Conservatives are the ones trying to prove altruism and empathy does not exist just because they lack it in themselves so get to proving your statement.
 
The actions of conservative law makers says otherwise. I sense no compassion for the working class in them at all while they preoccupy themselves with the tax burden on the wealthy. Conservatism abhors the masses, reflexively resists collective action and has a dim view of democracy itself, how can you say that it is inherently more compassionate in it's cold social Darwinist views?
The rich already pay most of the taxes. You apparently define compassion as how much money you can confiscate are redistribute. The war on policy has been a very long and very expensive lesson on how it doesn't work. But that's libs for you, their ideology is an emotionally driven belief that won't let facts diminish.

Put another way, it's childish.
Trickle down has to work in some way, it's not like the super wealthy are doing it as advertised. The rich are always all right no matter what the tax structure or regulatory framework, you guys need to shift your focus to the American people at large who are steadily sinking.
Conservatives do. With less burden on business the more business grows, it's human nature. More business means more opportunity. More opportunity means more demand for workers and higher wages. History proves it over and over, this isn't theoretical. What is theoretical is that we can tax ourselves into prosperity.
 
The actions of conservative law makers says otherwise. I sense no compassion for the working class in them at all while they preoccupy themselves with the tax burden on the wealthy. Conservatism abhors the masses, reflexively resists collective action and has a dim view of democracy itself, how can you say that it is inherently more compassionate in it's cold social Darwinist views?
The rich already pay most of the taxes. You apparently define compassion as how much money you can confiscate are redistribute. The war on policy has been a very long and very expensive lesson on how it doesn't work. But that's libs for you, their ideology is an emotionally driven belief that won't let facts diminish.

Put another way, it's childish.
Trickle down has to work in some way, it's not like the super wealthy are doing it as advertised. The rich are always all right no matter what the tax structure or regulatory framework, you guys need to shift your focus to the American people at large who are steadily sinking.
Conservatives do. With less burden on business the more business grows, it's human nature. More business means more opportunity. More opportunity means more demand for workers and higher wages. History proves it over and over, this isn't theoretical. What is theoretical is that we can tax ourselves into prosperity.
By that same rationale we cannot cut taxes into prosperity because taxes are not the problem dragging on the economy.
 
Don't you love how the commie puppets who post on here for their democrat socialist masters say conservatives have no logic and trickle down does not work? Then, in their logical minds they use the analogy....." Trickle up."

Holy shit.

What the fuck, trickles up? Somehow that is logical, in their stupid warped condescending minds.

Stuck in their little cliches about the rich and fair share and pure bullshit. They talk about charities. As if any of these do Gooder limousine liberals do good altruistically.

Let me know if you want me to compare and contrast lists between the Christian groups that they hate,that do good works daily 365 days a year (for 2000 years btw) selflessly without reward, and the so called good works done by liberals. Oh, shitting, pissing, fucking and smoking pot in a field for a week at some earth day festival does not fucking count as good works.

You stupid fucking puppets.
 
Last edited:
Don't you love how the commie puppets who post on here for their democrat socialist masters say conservatives have no logic and trickle down does not work? Then, in their logical minds they use the analogy....." Trickle up."

Holy shit.

What the fuck, trickles up? Somehow that is logical, in their stupid warped condescending minds.

Stuck in their little cliches about the rich and fair share and pure bullshit. They talk about charities. As if any of these do Gooder limousine liberals do good altruistically.

Let me know if you want me to compare and contrast lists between the Christian groups that do good works daily 365 days a year (for 2000 years btw) selflessly without reward, and the so called good works done by liberals. Oh, shitting, pissing, fucking and smoking pot in a field for a week at some earth day festival does not fucking count as good works.

You stupid fucking puppets.
The economy is like a pyramid, less money at the base endangers the entire structure. It's why all the important economic indicators measure the health of the working class economy instead of Wall Street. When money stops flowing down from the "job creators" something must fill the void or a death spiral occurs, the something is government taxation and spending. Over the years Wall Street has come to count on this economic stop gap to short-sell America while not having to worry about torches and pitchforks.
 
Until a short while ago I had never even heard of Evan Sayet, nor had I been aware that on March 5, 2007, before the Heritage Foundation, he had given one of the most profound and enlightening lectures ever spoken on contemporary Liberalism. Quite literally, in about 3/4 of an hour, he explains everything one needs to know about the Liberal philosophy and mindset, shedding light on the myriad of inexplicable initiatives, attitudes, and deeds of the American Left (though it applies to Lefties throughout the world).

Born a New York (Liberal) Jew, Mr. Sayet came to realize the stunning hate and contempt in which his comrades held the U.S. of A. when, after the bombing of the WTC and Pentagon in 2001, they agreed amongst themselves, with virtual unanimity, that America "deserved" this attack. But I digress...

With sinful brevity I will try to summarize what he says.

The ultimate sin for American liberals is the sin of "judgmentalism." That is to say, one must NEVER deem one person, philosophy, attitude, or course of behavior to be better than, or worse than, any other. Everything is equal, and one must always remain neutral.

Consider the implications of this attitude.

Gay marriage? Who am I to say that one lifestyle is better or worse than any other? That would be judgmental of me. Of course people of the same gender should be given the same considerations and benefits of people in male-female relationships.

The Welfare State? One must NEVER say or imply that a certain lifestyle leads to poverty, crime, substance abuse, HS dropouts, chronic unemployment, and so on. To say that would mean that one lifestyle is "worse" than another, and that would be judgmental.

Why will Liberal news media never characterize people as "terrorists"? Because that implies that they are evil, which would be judgmental. Why can neither the MSM nor any Liberal politician acknowledge that Islam is the greatest threat to world peace? The evidence is overwhelming. 90% of all wars of the past 50 years have been either entirely or largely a matter of one group of Muslims attempting to kill or oppress some country or group outside their particular piece of Islam.

And heaven forbid that a Liberal ever acknowledge anything beneficial that arose out of Christianity. Hospitals, schools, orphanages, immunizations, feeding the hungry, clothing the poor? Forget about it. Means nothing. Because to acknowledge anything good would be to imply that other religious and philosophies are not AS good.

A corollary is that everyone and everything is equal, and must be dealt with neutrally. People rioting in the streets? Looting? Setting fire to businesses? There is nothing "wrong" with that; one MUST presume that ANYONE in the same circumstances would do the same. To suppose otherwise would mean that those people are "bad," and there is no good or bad.

Sayet illustrates the point with coverage of a theoretical football game where one team wins 83-3. To an objective journalist, the winning team proved that it was the better team. But the Liberal, "neutral" journalist sees it quite differently. Both teams are presumed to be "equal," so the story line is trying to explain why, with two equal teams, the result was so lopsided. The winning team must have cheated.

"Income inequality" anyone? If all people are equally meritorious, and if one group of the population ends up with more income/wealth than another group, then it MUST have occurred through some sort of deviousness, theft, or interference. It couldn't POSSIBLY have been the normal and natural result of hard work, intelligent effort, or well-calculated risk-taking. Therefore "income inequality" is a problem requiring a (government) solution. The same philosophy motivates the move to a higher minimum wage. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that certain people are incapable or unwilling to EARN a living wage; that would mean that they were inferior to their economic betters.

It is all so clear to me now.

How many acres of farmland went into building all those strawmen?
 
Money is the root of all evil. Isn't that God's word?
It's "the love of money". Money is but a tool of commerce, it's the compulsive need to accumulate and hoard money far past your needs and lord it over less fortunate that is evil.
 

Forum List

Back
Top