What Liberals Believe...

[starcraftzzz]

If it were true, I suppose.

Wow you are so smart that you can barely form a sentence

 

[koshergrl]

If it were true, I suppose.

Wow you are so smart that you can barely form a sentence.

But I did form one, at least.

 

[midcan5]

PC, et al

The immorality of the Americans who possesses so much money they think they can control the world. The amorality of those who support the greed and self centered rich who take advantage of the freedoms of America, not to earn money as they already have enough, but to control the minds of the likes of Charles J. Sykes and people like you, who live in some sort of bubble where the real world never enters.

Who are these moochers who rely on the modern day government - the modern devil - for sustenance? Do you know any? Can you point to them? Can you prove your point? No, you cannot for if you lived in the real world where the average salary isn't enough to support a family in most areas of the nation, you wouldn't post such BS.

Allow me to point to the real moochers for you, they are the Sykes of this world who do nothing but talk and are supported by money so that money's message can continue to distort reality. Consider that 155 million* of the wealth of one family goes not for good, but to support the very places where Sykes and you get your minds. Three and half million to the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute whose only goal is fight the devil and any justice left in America for the average American.

Does it ever strike you as curious that money loves this devil so long as the devil supports them? And so many who claim to hate the devil work for the devil, for they want connections and the money that follows. You conservatives - republicans - libertarians know so little of the world it amazes. Why not analyze the S&L bailouts after Reagan/Bush? Why not analyze the Bank bailouts after Bush II? Why not, because you have neither the knowledge nor experience to know anything more than what big money has told you to think. Money manages ideas in America today and they are rarely good ideas - nor for a positive purpose.

Each of your excerpts can be viewed differently if knowledge informed your OP, the real moochers are the ones you support when you fail to support all of America.

PS As a liberal I believe what I see, read and can confirm, nothing in those excerpts makes sense to me because of the biased presentation and not the content.

Here is a piece on the real moochers, your mentors in life. The rich only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State or The Empathy Ceiling: The Rich Are Different


I've included a few links for the free thinkers left in America? Are there any?

"Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.


"Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy, is a network of over 700 business leaders and wealthy individuals in the top 5% of income and/or wealth in the US who use their surprising voice to advocate for fair taxes and corporate accountability. If you're in the top 5% (over $200,000 household income and/or over $1 million net assets) and you care about economic justice, please join Responsible Wealth today!" Responsible Wealth | United for a Fair Economy


"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life." What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax


Dated but very interesting and worth a read: Books: Our Invisible Poor : The New Yorker


"This is when the Republican Party set its trap. Meeting in closed sessions at the beginning of the Obama regime, the party of tax cuts for the rich, unfunded wars, and the largest deficit in the history of the country redefined itself. It suddenly became the party of deficit reduction through lean government joined to supreme confidence in unregulated financial and corporate markets. It even opposed the bail out of General Motors and Chrysler, though these actions stopped unemployment from reaching a dangerous tipping point, allowed the two companies time to reconstruct themselves, and enabled them to pay back the loans within two years–-creating one of the most successful bailouts in the history of Euro-American economic life." William E. Connolly See The Contemporary Condition: The Republican Pincer Machine


"Poor countries are poor not because they lack resources, but because they lack effective political institutions." Francis Fukuyama

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...h-should-not-be-taxed-more-9.html#post4392557

* Charles J. Sykes is a Milwaukee talk-radio host and a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation - SourceWatch

 

[koshergrl]

Good grief, shut up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, et al

The immorality of the Americans who possesses so much money they think they can control the world. The amorality of those who support the greed and self centered rich who take advantage of the freedoms of America, not to earn money as they already have enough, but to control the minds of the likes of Charles J. Sykes and people like you, who live in some sort of bubble where the real world never enters.

Who are these moochers who rely on the modern day government - the modern devil - for sustenance? Do you know any? Can you point to them? Can you prove your point? No, you cannot for if you lived in the real world where the average salary isn't enough to support a family in most areas of the nation, you wouldn't post such BS.

Allow me to point to the real moochers for you, they are the Sykes of this world who do nothing but talk and are supported by money so that money's message can continue to distort reality. Consider that 155 million* of the wealth of one family goes not for good, but to support the very places where Sykes and you get your minds. Three and half million to the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute whose only goal is fight the devil and any justice left in America for the average American.

Does it ever strike you as curious that money loves this devil so long as the devil supports them? And so many who claim to hate the devil work for the devil, for they want connections and the money that follows. You conservatives - republicans - libertarians know so little of the world it amazes. Why not analyze the S&L bailouts after Reagan/Bush? Why not analyze the Bank bailouts after Bush II? Why not, because you have neither the knowledge nor experience to know anything more than what big money has told you to think. Money manages ideas in America today and they are rarely good ideas - nor for a positive purpose.

Each of your excerpts can be viewed differently if knowledge informed your OP, the real moochers are the ones you support when you fail to support all of America.

PS As a liberal I believe what I see, read and can confirm, nothing in those excerpts makes sense to me because of the biased presentation and not the content.

Here is a piece on the real moochers, your mentors in life. The rich only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State or The Empathy Ceiling: The Rich Are Different


I've included a few links for the free thinkers left in America? Are there any?

"Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.


"Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy, is a network of over 700 business leaders and wealthy individuals in the top 5% of income and/or wealth in the US who use their surprising voice to advocate for fair taxes and corporate accountability. If you're in the top 5% (over $200,000 household income and/or over $1 million net assets) and you care about economic justice, please join Responsible Wealth today!" Responsible Wealth | United for a Fair Economy


"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life." What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax


Dated but very interesting and worth a read: Books: Our Invisible Poor : The New Yorker


"This is when the Republican Party set its trap. Meeting in closed sessions at the beginning of the Obama regime, the party of tax cuts for the rich, unfunded wars, and the largest deficit in the history of the country redefined itself. It suddenly became the party of deficit reduction through lean government joined to supreme confidence in unregulated financial and corporate markets. It even opposed the bail out of General Motors and Chrysler, though these actions stopped unemployment from reaching a dangerous tipping point, allowed the two companies time to reconstruct themselves, and enabled them to pay back the loans within two years–-creating one of the most successful bailouts in the history of Euro-American economic life." William E. Connolly See The Contemporary Condition: The Republican Pincer Machine


"Poor countries are poor not because they lack resources, but because they lack effective political institutions." Francis Fukuyama

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...h-should-not-be-taxed-more-9.html#post4392557

* Charles J. Sykes is a Milwaukee talk-radio host and a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation - SourceWatch

1. "Here is a piece on the real moochers, your mentors in life. The rich only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State or The Empathy Ceiling: The Rich Are Different.'

Once you point our any folks, rich or poor, as "moochers"...and taking hand-outs as a pejorative....
....you don't realize it....

....but you are on my side of the argument!


2. If you frame the question as to which is better....to make money, or to take money....


....man....I want that debate all day long!


I'll beat your brains (and, you do have brains!) out on that one!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

None of which changes the fact that your diatribe is all based on "imagine the response..." Yes, let's all imagine that the "Liberal intellectual elite" said....

1. Now, now...no fibbing.

You know very well that the OP is neither a diatribe (bitter verbal attack....'polemic' would have been closer) nor is it untrue.

2. "all based on "imagine the response.."
Really?
Go to the sources and note that I have relayed just what folks said, either as a paraphrase or a direct quote.

3. I notice that you seem calmer: bet it's because you realize how deleterious those liberal doctrines are.

4. And, as the OP states:

So, my "Liberal" colleagues....these are the ideas and the folks to which you are wedded.
Bet lots of you say 'I don't agree with all of that..."

You might want to rethink the marriage...

What does the physiological state of my body, as you infer it from the words that I use, have to do with "What Liberal Believe..."? What is your point, really? That if your calm, ergo your reasoning is sound?

Are you completely unable to distinguish between your objects and your perception of how other people feel? Are you really this insane?

"intellectual superiors", "educated folks"? Oh, yeah, I forgot, your education attainment is what? What was that college degree in? Private school in K-12?

" reality is defined by actions, rather than by words." and you infer from two meaningless references and one recent article on food stamp that "Liberals Believe...." what?

"The OP shows that ...." The OP is "What Liberals Believe.." you haven't even shown what liberals believe.

"Go to the sources and note that I have relayed just what folks said"

Yeah, you relayed what someone else claims someone else believes, at best. Though I am beginning to suspect the accuracy of what your have relayed about what your sources said.

Even then, it's all a nebulous connection at best.

Because, of course, the bank bailouts initiated under the Bush admin are like food stamp programs for the poor.

As such, it is clear "What Liberals Believe...."

1. If you are denying that Liberal - Progressive government is not about taxing and spending, always growing, designed to make more and more people dependent on government....well, then you just don't understand the last hundred year history of the United States.

a. Another book you should read is de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America." From same:

He described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”

He wrote it in 1830.


2.To understand the import of the OP, consider this rule, confounding to Liberals....

"NOBODY OWES YOU ANYTHING."

 

[PoliticalChic]

From a review of "A Nation of Moochers."

Book Review: A Nation of Moochers - WSJ.com

"From banks to GM to underwater mortgage holders, a surprising number of us have our eyes on the public purse."

Just to be clear, that we are talking about Mr. Sykes view, moochers " according to Mr. Sykes, 'perfectly captures the new culture of bailouts and irresponsible grasping.'"

or "Mr. Sykes rightly reminds readers of the many not-so-destitute folks who benefit from government largess or loophole-favors: GE paying minimal taxes despite a global profit measuring in the billions; Archer Daniels Midland making sure we keep subsidizing ethanol; Goldman Sachs using its clout to avoid taking a haircut on its AIG positions. And let's not forget the coastal vacation properties in Hilton Head Island or Florida covered by the National Flood Insurance Program—"the taxpayer's gift to improvident beach dwellers," as Mr. Sykes puts it. Heaven forbid that someone wealthy enough to afford a beach house should pay market rates to insure it."

Yep, there is a great reference to support the premise "What Liberals Believe"..

The owness to make your case is upon you.

You make a host of quotes of someone else claiming what someone else believes.

Your two main sources are a sixteen year old book about the 1906's, and a recent book that talks about everything from medicare and disability to bailouts of GM and AIG.

All this to support the premise that a recent article about current food stamp levels are part of this liberal thinking consipracy.

So let's see how this plays out. Let's assume that the quotes of someone else saying what someone else believes are accurate.

The progression of "liberal" thinking in the 1960's leads to this current culture of corporate bailouts which leads to the increase in food stamps during the largest recession in history with record long term unemployment.

Oh, I get it. Yep, that's a pretty strong case for "what liberals believe..."

Now, I love to write...and don't intend to shorten my posts....

...but our friend Cheetah posted the "money post" earlier....


one brief sentence that sums up the philosophy of Liberals....

Here it is again:

"We try and discourage people from self help." - MA A.G. Coakley

 

[PoliticalChic]

Craig T. Nelson on Government Aid - YouTube

Conservatives never get help from government. Too independent and hard working. They never take food stamps and welfare. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

So, the import of your post is that you oppose " food stamps and welfare"?


Tell me....do you have a replacement lined up, now that you've moved away from the darkside?


Now...this may be too nuanced for you, deanie...but in post #22 I wrote the following:


"The default position of America is the belief that the average American is competent to navigate his own life; that parents are capable of raising their own children; that most Americans are fully able to pursue happiness with only an occasional helping hand. "
That's from Charles Sykes' book...


So, you see, nobody is saying no help-no time-never.

"....with only an occasional helping hand...."

Very different from the Cloward and Piven-Liberal position of a guaranteed income from the government.....

...or is that your wish?

 

[midcan5]

1. "Here is a piece on the real moochers, your mentors in life. The rich only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State or The Empathy Ceiling: The Rich Are Different.'

Once you point our any folks, rich or poor, as "moochers"...and taking hand-outs as a pejorative....
....you don't realize it....

....but you are on my side of the argument!

2. If you frame the question as to which is better....to make money, or to take money....

....man....I want that debate all day long!

I'll beat your brains (and, you do have brains!) out on that one!!!

PC, You missed my point, but we could agree there are lots of moochers. If we did that you'd probably be lost, as it is liberals that are the fault of 'moochers' in your world - and I think I read you correctly. If I don't, you need to revise lots of your posts. Find a word to replace your bogeyman.

Here's my point: you cherry pick quotes and other assorted writing as if something follows from the writings etc that can be verified. You then label these quotes etc as the work of liberals, and then sit back comfortable you have figured something out. The problem is there is no connection between your quotes and these so called 'moochers' as you never give us a real moocher. It is just a lot of words. For instance if you find someone who cheats, say on welfare, so what, lots cheat and they don't cheat because of some obscure quote or writing. There is no connection. People cheat because they are human and they can, and we could probably agree they have questionable morals.

As for 'making' versus 'taking,' that too would need an example as making can be taking. Show us the takers and to prove your point make sure the taker connects to your premise.

The piece below gets at my point as well.

"Does Goldberg really believe this stuff? Or is he just being tendentious for rhetorical effect? In the end, his vindictive thrashings have very little to do with the actual practice of politics; the idea that political clichés are banal isn’t exactly a blinding insight, either. Sadly, Goldberg has intellectual resources that might be put to grown-up use. But then, as the liberal cliché has it, “a mind is a terrible thing to waste." Joe Klein http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/books/review/the-tyranny-of-cliches-by-jonah-goldberg.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Here is a piece on the real moochers, your mentors in life. The rich only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State or The Empathy Ceiling: The Rich Are Different.'

Once you point our any folks, rich or poor, as "moochers"...and taking hand-outs as a pejorative....
....you don't realize it....

....but you are on my side of the argument!

2. If you frame the question as to which is better....to make money, or to take money....

....man....I want that debate all day long!

I'll beat your brains (and, you do have brains!) out on that one!!!

PC, You missed my point, but we could agree there are lots of moochers. If we did that you'd probably be lost, as it is liberals that are the fault of 'moochers' in your world - and I think I read you correctly. If I don't, you need to revise lots of your posts. Find a word to replace your bogeyman.

Here's my point: you cherry pick quotes and other assorted writing as if something follows from the writings etc that can be verified. You then label these quotes etc as the work of liberals, and then sit back comfortable you have figured something out. The problem is there is no connection between your quotes and these so called 'moochers' as you never give us a real moocher. It is just a lot of words. For instance if you find someone who cheats, say on welfare, so what, lots cheat and they don't cheat because of some obscure quote or writing. There is no connection. People cheat because they are human and they can, and we could probably agree they have questionable morals.

As for 'making' versus 'taking,' that too would need an example as making can be taking. Show us the takers and to prove your point make sure the taker connects to your premise.

The piece below gets at my point as well.

"Does Goldberg really believe this stuff? Or is he just being tendentious for rhetorical effect? In the end, his vindictive thrashings have very little to do with the actual practice of politics; the idea that political clichés are banal isn’t exactly a blinding insight, either. Sadly, Goldberg has intellectual resources that might be put to grown-up use. But then, as the liberal cliché has it, “a mind is a terrible thing to waste." Joe Klein http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/books/review/the-tyranny-of-cliches-by-jonah-goldberg.html

Are you and Joe Klein actually going to claim that quoting actual sources is 'cherry picking...'?
And that that method is less than dispostitive?

Horse feathers.

It is exactly what should be done....Klein even admits that many of said quotes are 'embarrassing.' Proves my point.

To deny that Liberalism is about expanding government, having it invade every avenue of endeavor, and use confiscatory taxation to pay for same is ....well, let's say a difficult position to defend.

Here is another exposition of same theme:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/224557-losing-ones-life-to-liberalism.html

 

[starcraftzzz]

Amazing instead of arguing actual policy PC finds some quotes that she can fake/doctor to look bad. Now why would he not argue policy but instead heresy because PC is a brainwashed Moron who can only copy, paste and regurgitate he is incapable of thinking for himself; he is the very definition of retard

 

[itfitzme]

Great post from the OP. Reminds me of the liberal in MA, our esteemed AG who is quoted as saying "We try and discourage people from self help ".

Just think about that statement. What a truly frightening thing to say. She should be run out of office for saying such a thing, instead, she'' have a government hack job for life.

It's the liberal way.

What is the context? That quote could mean anything? We try and discourage people from self-medicating, We try and discourage people from performing their own dental work. We try and discourage people from fixing their own vacuum cleaner. From vigilante justice.

As presented, it means nothing.

Your a perfect reader for the OP because you both think you've said something, when you've said nothing.

You two could just post vague reference and generalities all day, say "Oh, yeah, your so right", all the while saying nothing of substance.

 

[itfitzme]

Let me see if I get this right.

PoliticoChic writes the OP in which she is to explain "What liberals believe..."

I conclude, then, that PoliticoChic epitomizes being a conservative and speaks for all conservatives. This is reasonable, after all, by her own devices, "all liberals believe ....", ergo, "all conservatives must believe...."

That said, she finds a fan in cheetah440, who presents a post of what "all liberals believe....", a quote of one Massachusetts Attorney General who supposedly said, our esteemed AG who is quoted as saying "We try and discourage people from self help ".

I can reasonably conclude, as "All conservatives believe...", that cheetah440 represents what all conservatives believe.

And this statement by the Mass AG, is presented with no context, potentially meaning anything from cutting ones own hair to vigilante justice.

Okay, so I search for this and find a number of references, one for each year going back to 2008. It seems that each year, some blogger or forum commenter copies an even smaller snippet of the original quote.

Monday, July 14, 2008 "A.G. Coakley: Ok, so, where is the boy while you are doing this I mean, the kid is not at risk now, because the assault has ended. So you want to get, make sure the kid is safe. You don't know exactly what happened. Did the father see it. I didn't get all the facts of this., so I can't, but, I mean I, I, I understand the father's emotion. Uhm and, he may well be acquitted, and the facts may come out and he may not have been guilty, uhm, all I'm saying is that, you know, we, we really try and discourage people from self help."

So, apparently she is referring to a yet to be tried case for which there are no established facts. There are no established facts because, by it's very nature, the only facts of a case are those that are presented in evidence in court. And, as Attorney General, I am not surprised that this would be her position and assume no established facts for a case that hasn't yet been tried.

There are some 55 million registered Democrats, all of whom I am to assume are these "liberals". And this body of some 55 million registered Democrats can be defined, in terms of all their thinking and beliefs, by the statement made by the Massachusetts Attorney General, some four years ago regarding a incident that had yet to have been established in fact.

Here is what I get, how conservatives think, that somehow everyone is suppose to just believe their bs, simply because they said it.

And I can say this, "how all conservatives think..." because by her own presentation, it is totally appropriate to lump all conservatives into one cohesive and homogeneous group, none of whom have an original and independent thought in their head.

That's what they are saying, basically.

 

[editec]

Seems that in liberal orthodoxy, welfare is more desirable than work.

Let's consider that complaint, shall we?

As a result of the BANKSTERS MELTDOWN our government did two things:

$789 billion welfare for the everybody in the entire USA. Is that liberalism? I guess so.

$24 TRILLION welfare for the BANKS. Is that liberalism, too?

Because if THAT is the liberalism that you're complaining about then I'm on board with your complaints.


We lend JP Morgan BILLIONS to stay solvent when it took over Bear Steans..

JP Morgan just lost $ 4 billion of that betting on derivatives in LONDON.

What amazes me about this boards RIGHT is they can see the problem of welfare for the poor, but cannot see (cannot even admit!) that the vast majority of welfare went to the BANKS.

 

[cheetah440]

Great post from the OP. Reminds me of the liberal in MA, our esteemed AG who is quoted as saying "We try and discourage people from self help ".

Just think about that statement. What a truly frightening thing to say. She should be run out of office for saying such a thing, instead, she'' have a government hack job for life.

It's the liberal way.

What is the context?


That quote could mean anything? We try and discourage people from self-medicating, We try and discourage people from performing their own dental work. We try and discourage people from fixing their own vacuum cleaner. From vigilante justice.

As presented, it means nothing.

Your a perfect reader for the OP because you both think you've said something, when you've said nothing.

You two could just post vague reference and generalities all day, say "Oh, yeah, your so right", all the while saying nothing of substance.

Then do about 2mins of research and self help yourself. I understand that liberals want everything to be spoon fed to them from someone, be it the government or other liberals. How dare you educate yourself.

"Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, talking about criticizing the father who punched out the guy he caught molesting his 4-year-old son in a supermarket men's room (and, who was subsequently arrested for his morally just actions).

"All I'm saying is that...we really try and discourage people from self-help.""
Borepatch: Martha Coakley: dumb as a rock

If I caught someone molesting my child he would be more than punched out, he would be choked out dead. I guess that makes me the bad guy in the eyes of liberals. Of course it does, because after all, we shouldn't protect ourselves, we should rely on authority, on the government for as much as possible. Feed it.

so many examples in the bastion of lunatic liberalism that is the peoples republic of Mass.

Swampscott Police Join The Martha Coakley “No Self Help” Brigades : The Natural Truth

"A Swampscott man hears someone messing with his truck in his driveway. He goes out and finds a local druggie known to carry a knife. While his wife called the cops, he stopped the would-be robber from breaking into his truck.

A fight ensued. The good guy won, the bad guy ended up with a broken jaw. He also had a knife and a police baton on him, it turns out. So what did the Swampscott cops do?

The victim of the alleged break-in, McKay, 29, of 37 Cherry St., faces a summons for assault and battery causing severe injury after he broke Johnson’s jaw after confronting him when Johnson allegedly was trying to break into his car.

Of course he was. So now he faces legal fees and possible jail time—and may lose his house.

“We don’t urge anybody to (fight back),” [Police spokesman] Cassidy said. “We want them to call us.”

This is liberal doctrine 101. Don't dare solve a problem yourself, don't dare fight back and defend yourself. Leave it all up to the government.

 

[cheetah440]

Let me see if I get this right.

PoliticoChic writes the OP in which she is to explain "What liberals believe..."

I conclude, then, that PoliticoChic epitomizes being a conservative and speaks for all conservatives. This is reasonable, after all, by her own devices, "all liberals believe ....", ergo, "all conservatives must believe...."

That said, she finds a fan in cheetah440, who presents a post of what "all liberals believe....", a quote of one Massachusetts Attorney General who supposedly said, our esteemed AG who is quoted as saying "We try and discourage people from self help ".

I can reasonably conclude, as "All conservatives believe...", that cheetah440 represents what all conservatives believe.

And this statement by the Mass AG, is presented with no context, potentially meaning anything from cutting ones own hair to vigilante justice.

Okay, so I search for this and find a number of references, one for each year going back to 2008. It seems that each year, some blogger or forum commenter copies an even smaller snippet of the original quote.

Monday, July 14, 2008 "A.G. Coakley: Ok, so, where is the boy while you are doing this I mean, the kid is not at risk now, because the assault has ended. So you want to get, make sure the kid is safe. You don't know exactly what happened. Did the father see it. I didn't get all the facts of this., so I can't, but, I mean I, I, I understand the father's emotion. Uhm and, he may well be acquitted, and the facts may come out and he may not have been guilty, uhm, all I'm saying is that, you know, we, we really try and discourage people from self help."

So, apparently she is referring to a yet to be tried case for which there are no established facts. There are no established facts because, by it's very nature, the only facts of a case are those that are presented in evidence in court. And, as Attorney General, I am not surprised that this would be her position and assume no established facts for a case that hasn't yet been tried.

There are some 55 million registered Democrats, all of whom I am to assume are these "liberals". And this body of some 55 million registered Democrats can be defined, in terms of all their thinking and beliefs, by the statement made by the Massachusetts Attorney General, some four years ago regarding a incident that had yet to have been established in fact.

Here is what I get, how conservatives think, that somehow everyone is suppose to just believe their bs, simply because they said it.

And I can say this, "how all conservatives think..." because by her own presentation, it is totally appropriate to lump all conservatives into one cohesive and homogeneous group, none of whom have an original and independent thought in their head.

That's what they are saying, basically.

Spin it however you want, she said it. She clearly says they discourage people from self help. Anyone doing so in MA is guilty until proven innocent. Save a life as a hero, and the STATE considers you guilty. Why? Because you dare to "self help". Instead you should call 911 and be killed before dare to fight back, dare to do what any real man would do. The nanny state continues.

 

[midcan5]

Are you and Joe Klein actually going to claim that quoting actual sources is 'cherry picking...'?

And that that method is less than dispostitive?

Horse feathers.

It is exactly what should be done....Klein even admits that many of said quotes are 'embarrassing.' Proves my point.

To deny that Liberalism is about expanding government, having it invade every avenue of endeavor, and use confiscatory taxation to pay for same is ....well, let's say a difficult position to defend.

Here is another exposition of same theme:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/224557-losing-ones-life-to-liberalism.html

You are still missing the point - can this be made clear. Quotes regardless of source are not the cause of mooching. You have to prove that the source and your assumptions meet - they don't. And you cannot prove it as you are cheery picking and then arriving at an assumption you already arrived at.

And please don't change the topic. Expanding government is not the topic, but again if you were an honest historian you'd know that Reagan and Bush II expanded the government greatly, while the so called liberal presidents reduced government. Clinton especially.

Back to mooching, if as you presume liberals expand government to increase mooching, you need to explain Reagan and Bush II. Then after you have tackled that question, you need to show a connection between expanded government and mooching. Is there one? Have at it. Hint - are weapons lobbyists moochers?

Jonah Goldberg is doing the same nonsensical argument you engage in, a constant straw man in which you start at the conclusion and then find words from some person, often someone who is probably read by ten people, and then by some magic, the ten people who read it, change the world. All ten are liberals and all love mooching, and so mooching becomes the way of the world. I am giving you too much help.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

if you were an honest historian you'd know that Reagan and Bush II expanded the government greatly, while the so called liberal presidents reduced government. Clinton especially.

too stupid beyound words

1) presidents don't have to power to reduce government. It happened when Clinton was in office because the first Republican majority in Congress in 40 years forced him to go along with their effort.


Clinton is not for small government and never was and does not say he is. That why he's a Democrat!! Do you think BO is lying when he says he want to take over the health care industry and raise taxes in general???