How to Test Liberal "Tolerance"

[OKTexas]

Disagree with them.

Liberals by their very nature are beta males/females. Utilizing notions like "hate speech" and being "offended" as to ascribe to themselves a permanent victim status is the only way they can gain power. This is why conservatives are far more tolerant. No true conservative cries that he/she is "offended." They have enough confidence within themselves to achieve success without demanding that others be forced to suffer for their misgivings and failures. A can-do attitude prevents the conservative from entering the beta territory of liberalism, and thus, they are far less likely to blame their troubles on others, which of course, breeds tolerance. Liberals, on the other hand, lack self confidence, and thus, develop an intolerant attitude to those who exemplify the cultural opposite of their beta notions of "collective well being." Alphas are individuals who can take care of themselves. Betas demand that Alphas partake in taking care of them. Being that we are an Alpha oriented America, liberals need be extra intolerant if they are to achieve their cultural Marxist dream of "sharing" the Alphas bounty.

LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!! I guess you missed some of your conservative friends being all offended and crying about the comments of Reverend Wright, Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan, Di Caprio, "THe Librul media!", "The Pwogwessives!", etc.
Turn on limpbaugh, hannity, and the rest of those jerk offs and all they are doing is complaining and acting offended.

I'm a Liberal and I believe that people have a right to voice their opinions no matter how much I agree or disagree with them. In my opinion, the First Amendment (as well as the other "bill of rights") is one of the cornerstone's of Our Country and what makes Our country free.

But heaven forbid anyone put up a nativity scene on the town square, right? That's not covered by the free exercise clause of the same amendment is it?

 

[Pheonixops]

Liberals by their very nature are beta males/females. Utilizing notions like "hate speech" and being "offended" as to ascribe to themselves a permanent victim status is the only way they can gain power. This is why conservatives are far more tolerant. No true conservative cries that he/she is "offended." They have enough confidence within themselves to achieve success without demanding that others be forced to suffer for their misgivings and failures. A can-do attitude prevents the conservative from entering the beta territory of liberalism, and thus, they are far less likely to blame their troubles on others, which of course, breeds tolerance. Liberals, on the other hand, lack self confidence, and thus, develop an intolerant attitude to those who exemplify the cultural opposite of their beta notions of "collective well being." Alphas are individuals who can take care of themselves. Betas demand that Alphas partake in taking care of them. Being that we are an Alpha oriented America, liberals need be extra intolerant if they are to achieve their cultural Marxist dream of "sharing" the Alphas bounty.

LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!! I guess you missed some of your conservative friends being all offended and crying about the comments of Reverend Wright, Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan, Di Caprio, "THe Librul media!", "The Pwogwessives!", etc.
Turn on limpbaugh, hannity, and the rest of those jerk offs and all they are doing is complaining and acting offended.

I'm a Liberal and I believe that people have a right to voice their opinions no matter how much I agree or disagree with them. In my opinion, the First Amendment (as well as the other "bill of rights") is one of the cornerstone's of Our Country and what makes Our country free.

But heaven forbid anyone put up a nativity scene on the town square, right? That's not covered by the free exercise clause of the same amendment is it?

Speaking for myself; I don't care if they put a Star and Crescent, Nativity scene, cross, Menorah, Hindu Gods, Buddah, etc. up in the town square. How about you?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Tolerance does NOT mean AGREEMENT.

That's the entire point of the thread.

Disagree with a liberal, and they will not merely disagree with you, but drown you in a wallow of hateful accusations.

 

[candycorn]

 

[candycorn]

Liberals by their very nature are beta males/females. Utilizing notions like "hate speech" and being "offended" as to ascribe to themselves a permanent victim status is the only way they can gain power. This is why conservatives are far more tolerant. No true conservative cries that he/she is "offended." They have enough confidence within themselves to achieve success without demanding that others be forced to suffer for their misgivings and failures. A can-do attitude prevents the conservative from entering the beta territory of liberalism, and thus, they are far less likely to blame their troubles on others, which of course, breeds tolerance. Liberals, on the other hand, lack self confidence, and thus, develop an intolerant attitude to those who exemplify the cultural opposite of their beta notions of "collective well being." Alphas are individuals who can take care of themselves. Betas demand that Alphas partake in taking care of them. Being that we are an Alpha oriented America, liberals need be extra intolerant if they are to achieve their cultural Marxist dream of "sharing" the Alphas bounty.

Name one misgiving or failure, conservatives have taken responsibility for?

Just one!

They've failed to complain about phantom voter fraud giving Obama the election enough. Or Benghazi.

I literally could not stop laughing at the post you cited....

 

[Publius1787]

Disagree with them.

Liberals by their very nature are beta males/females. Utilizing notions like "hate speech" and being "offended" as to ascribe to themselves a permanent victim status is the only way they can gain power. This is why conservatives are far more tolerant. No true conservative cries that he/she is "offended." They have enough confidence within themselves to achieve success without demanding that others be forced to suffer for their misgivings and failures. A can-do attitude prevents the conservative from entering the beta territory of liberalism, and thus, they are far less likely to blame their troubles on others, which of course, breeds tolerance. Liberals, on the other hand, lack self confidence, and thus, develop an intolerant attitude to those who exemplify the cultural opposite of their beta notions of "collective well being." Alphas are individuals who can take care of themselves. Betas demand that Alphas partake in taking care of them. Being that we are an Alpha oriented America, liberals need be extra intolerant if they are to achieve their cultural Marxist dream of "sharing" the Alphas bounty.

LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!! I guess you missed some of your conservative friends being all offended and crying about the comments of Reverend Wright, Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan, Di Caprio, "THe Librul media!", "The Pwogwessives!", etc.
Turn on limpbaugh, hannity, and the rest of those jerk offs and all they are doing is complaining and acting offended.

I'm a Liberal and I believe that people have a right to voice their opinions no matter how much I agree or disagree with them. In my opinion, the First Amendment (as well as the other "bill of rights") is one of the cornerstone's of Our Country and what makes Our country free.

You do understand that my argument is a cultural one ad not a political one right? You cannot tell me that the liberal culture in this country is not a beta culture. In any case, raising awareness of the very Marxist doctrine of Black Liberation Theology and connecting Wright to Obama was a legitimate criticism. No demand for victim status there.

The reason I can type without profanity is that I am confident in myself as an Alpha and don't feel the necessity to ask that profanity to make the case for me. You, on the other hand, are exemplifying beta outrage when you type "LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!!" with not one, not two, but three exclamation points. Three exclamation points? Wow you must be extra certain in your convictions! ..... I think not. Liberal culture is a beta culture. Without victim status they have no party platform and no constituency.

 

[Pheonixops]

Liberals by their very nature are beta males/females. Utilizing notions like "hate speech" and being "offended" as to ascribe to themselves a permanent victim status is the only way they can gain power. This is why conservatives are far more tolerant. No true conservative cries that he/she is "offended." They have enough confidence within themselves to achieve success without demanding that others be forced to suffer for their misgivings and failures. A can-do attitude prevents the conservative from entering the beta territory of liberalism, and thus, they are far less likely to blame their troubles on others, which of course, breeds tolerance. Liberals, on the other hand, lack self confidence, and thus, develop an intolerant attitude to those who exemplify the cultural opposite of their beta notions of "collective well being." Alphas are individuals who can take care of themselves. Betas demand that Alphas partake in taking care of them. Being that we are an Alpha oriented America, liberals need be extra intolerant if they are to achieve their cultural Marxist dream of "sharing" the Alphas bounty.

LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!! I guess you missed some of your conservative friends being all offended and crying about the comments of Reverend Wright, Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan, Di Caprio, "THe Librul media!", "The Pwogwessives!", etc.
Turn on limpbaugh, hannity, and the rest of those jerk offs and all they are doing is complaining and acting offended.

I'm a Liberal and I believe that people have a right to voice their opinions no matter how much I agree or disagree with them. In my opinion, the First Amendment (as well as the other "bill of rights") is one of the cornerstone's of Our Country and what makes Our country free.

You do understand that my argument is a cultural one ad not a political one right? You cannot tell me that the liberal culture in this country is not a beta culture. In any case, raising awareness of the very Marxist doctrine of Black Liberation Theology and connecting Wright to Obama was a legitimate criticism. No demand for victim status there.

The reason I can type without profanity is that I am confident in myself as an Alpha and don't feel the necessity to ask that profanity to make the case for me. You, on the other hand, are exemplifying beta outrage when you type "LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!!" with not one, not two, but three exclamation points. Three exclamation points? Wow you must be extra certain in your convictions! ..... I think not. Liberal culture is a beta culture. Without victim status they have no party platform and no constituency.

No I don't understand that your "argument is a cultural one ad not a political one ". Isn't one's politics part of their "culture"? The conservative like hannity, limbaugh, beck and the like, were in near hysterics about Reverend Wright's comments that were made in a religious sense.

LOL this is too funny; "I am confident in myself as an Alpha". If you have to go around and tell people that you are an "Alpha" then you are most likely not an "Alpha". I wasn't "outraged" when I typed ""LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!!" , I was laughing at you guys just like I am smiling and laughing while I type this reply to you.

Many if not most of the Founding Fathers were Liberals.

 

[Bfgrn]

Disagree with them.

Liberals by their very nature are beta males/females. Utilizing notions like "hate speech" and being "offended" as to ascribe to themselves a permanent victim status is the only way they can gain power. This is why conservatives are far more tolerant. No true conservative cries that he/she is "offended." They have enough confidence within themselves to achieve success without demanding that others be forced to suffer for their misgivings and failures. A can-do attitude prevents the conservative from entering the beta territory of liberalism, and thus, they are far less likely to blame their troubles on others, which of course, breeds tolerance. Liberals, on the other hand, lack self confidence, and thus, develop an intolerant attitude to those who exemplify the cultural opposite of their beta notions of "collective well being." Alphas are individuals who can take care of themselves. Betas demand that Alphas partake in taking care of them. Being that we are an Alpha oriented America, liberals need be extra intolerant if they are to achieve their cultural Marxist dream of "sharing" the Alphas bounty.

If you want to own that argument, then you must also accept this fact. Can't have it both ways...

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

 

[LoneLaugher]

It all boils down to common sense. If you have it, you will not likely open your mouth in support of he stupidity exhibited by modern nutter heroes.

 

[Publius1787]

Disagree with them.

Liberals by their very nature are beta males/females. Utilizing notions like "hate speech" and being "offended" as to ascribe to themselves a permanent victim status is the only way they can gain power. This is why conservatives are far more tolerant. No true conservative cries that he/she is "offended." They have enough confidence within themselves to achieve success without demanding that others be forced to suffer for their misgivings and failures. A can-do attitude prevents the conservative from entering the beta territory of liberalism, and thus, they are far less likely to blame their troubles on others, which of course, breeds tolerance. Liberals, on the other hand, lack self confidence, and thus, develop an intolerant attitude to those who exemplify the cultural opposite of their beta notions of "collective well being." Alphas are individuals who can take care of themselves. Betas demand that Alphas partake in taking care of them. Being that we are an Alpha oriented America, liberals need be extra intolerant if they are to achieve their cultural Marxist dream of "sharing" the Alphas bounty.

If you want to own that argument, then you must also accept this fact. Can't have it both ways...

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is a form of government.[1][2][3] It is characterized by absolute or blind[4] obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience.

 

[Publius1787]

LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!! I guess you missed some of your conservative friends being all offended and crying about the comments of Reverend Wright, Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan, Di Caprio, "THe Librul media!", "The Pwogwessives!", etc.
Turn on limpbaugh, hannity, and the rest of those jerk offs and all they are doing is complaining and acting offended.

I'm a Liberal and I believe that people have a right to voice their opinions no matter how much I agree or disagree with them. In my opinion, the First Amendment (as well as the other "bill of rights") is one of the cornerstone's of Our Country and what makes Our country free.

You do understand that my argument is a cultural one ad not a political one right? You cannot tell me that the liberal culture in this country is not a beta culture. In any case, raising awareness of the very Marxist doctrine of Black Liberation Theology and connecting Wright to Obama was a legitimate criticism. No demand for victim status there.

The reason I can type without profanity is that I am confident in myself as an Alpha and don't feel the necessity to ask that profanity to make the case for me. You, on the other hand, are exemplifying beta outrage when you type "LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!!" with not one, not two, but three exclamation points. Three exclamation points? Wow you must be extra certain in your convictions! ..... I think not. Liberal culture is a beta culture. Without victim status they have no party platform and no constituency.

No I don't understand that your "argument is a cultural one ad not a political one ". Isn't one's politics part of their "culture"? The conservative like hannity, limbaugh, beck and the like, were in near hysterics about Reverend Wright's comments that were made in a religious sense.

LOL this is too funny; "I am confident in myself as an Alpha". If you have to go around and tell people that you are an "Alpha" then you are most likely not an "Alpha". I wasn't "outraged" when I typed ""LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!!" , I was laughing at you guys just like I am smiling and laughing while I type this reply to you.

Many if not most of the Founding Fathers were Liberals.

I suppose you don't know the difference between classical liberalism and the modern term of "liberal" which was adopted to make up for the fact that they were anything but. That and progressivism had become a bad marketing strategy for the left. Indeed, they simply changed their label. So I will function within modern labels.

You were laughing huh? Why did you feel the need to type that you were laughing? Did you want to paint an image in my head of your personal situation? Why? How does that help your argument? If you answer all of these questions honestly then you will see that your making up for something your insecure about. Alphas aren't insecure. Alphas don't need to notify someone that they are laughing because they know that no one really cares and it contributes nothing to the argument. In fact, "LOLing" is rarely typed when people are actually laughing. They therefore do it to portray an image of themselves that is untrue. The question is why? The reason is that portraying themselves as laughing gives them comfort in an argumentative setting as it is only a means betas use to attempt to transfer their insecurity to another by displaying false confidence in their own security.

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberals by their very nature are beta males/females. Utilizing notions like "hate speech" and being "offended" as to ascribe to themselves a permanent victim status is the only way they can gain power. This is why conservatives are far more tolerant. No true conservative cries that he/she is "offended." They have enough confidence within themselves to achieve success without demanding that others be forced to suffer for their misgivings and failures. A can-do attitude prevents the conservative from entering the beta territory of liberalism, and thus, they are far less likely to blame their troubles on others, which of course, breeds tolerance. Liberals, on the other hand, lack self confidence, and thus, develop an intolerant attitude to those who exemplify the cultural opposite of their beta notions of "collective well being." Alphas are individuals who can take care of themselves. Betas demand that Alphas partake in taking care of them. Being that we are an Alpha oriented America, liberals need be extra intolerant if they are to achieve their cultural Marxist dream of "sharing" the Alphas bounty.

If you want to own that argument, then you must also accept this fact. Can't have it both ways...

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Nope. Authoritarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Authoritarianism is a form of government.[1][2][3] It is characterized by absolute or blind[4] obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience.

Yep-Authoritarian personality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Authoritarian personality is a state of mind or attitude characterised by belief in absolute obedience or submission to one's own authority, as well as the administration of that belief through the oppression of one's subordinates. It usually applies to individuals who are known or viewed as having an authoritative, strict, or oppressive personality towards subordinates.

It is the very core of an alpha

 

[Bfgrn]

You do understand that my argument is a cultural one ad not a political one right? You cannot tell me that the liberal culture in this country is not a beta culture. In any case, raising awareness of the very Marxist doctrine of Black Liberation Theology and connecting Wright to Obama was a legitimate criticism. No demand for victim status there.

The reason I can type without profanity is that I am confident in myself as an Alpha and don't feel the necessity to ask that profanity to make the case for me. You, on the other hand, are exemplifying beta outrage when you type "LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!!" with not one, not two, but three exclamation points. Three exclamation points? Wow you must be extra certain in your convictions! ..... I think not. Liberal culture is a beta culture. Without victim status they have no party platform and no constituency.

No I don't understand that your "argument is a cultural one ad not a political one ". Isn't one's politics part of their "culture"? The conservative like hannity, limbaugh, beck and the like, were in near hysterics about Reverend Wright's comments that were made in a religious sense.

LOL this is too funny; "I am confident in myself as an Alpha". If you have to go around and tell people that you are an "Alpha" then you are most likely not an "Alpha". I wasn't "outraged" when I typed ""LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!!" , I was laughing at you guys just like I am smiling and laughing while I type this reply to you.

Many if not most of the Founding Fathers were Liberals.

I suppose you don't know the difference between classical liberalism and the modern term of "liberal" which was adopted to make up for the fact that they were anything but. That and progressivism had become a bad marketing strategy for the left. Indeed, they simply changed their label. So I will function within modern labels.

You were laughing huh? Why did you feel the need to type that you were laughing? Did you want to paint an image in my head of your personal situation? Why? How does that help your argument? If you answer all of these questions honestly then you will see that your making up for something your insecure about. Alphas aren't insecure. Alphas don't need to notify someone that they are laughing because they know that no one really cares and it contributes nothing to the argument. In fact, "LOLing" is rarely typed when people are actually laughing. They therefore do it to portray an image of themselves that is untrue. The question is why? The reason is that it gives them comfort in an argumentative setting by portraying themselves as laughing at an argument of another as to attempt to transfer their insecurity to another by displaying confidence in their own security.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

 

[Publius1787]

No I don't understand that your "argument is a cultural one ad not a political one ". Isn't one's politics part of their "culture"? The conservative like hannity, limbaugh, beck and the like, were in near hysterics about Reverend Wright's comments that were made in a religious sense.

LOL this is too funny; "I am confident in myself as an Alpha". If you have to go around and tell people that you are an "Alpha" then you are most likely not an "Alpha". I wasn't "outraged" when I typed ""LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!!" , I was laughing at you guys just like I am smiling and laughing while I type this reply to you.

Many if not most of the Founding Fathers were Liberals.

I suppose you don't know the difference between classical liberalism and the modern term of "liberal" which was adopted to make up for the fact that they were anything but. That and progressivism had become a bad marketing strategy for the left. Indeed, they simply changed their label. So I will function within modern labels.

You were laughing huh? Why did you feel the need to type that you were laughing? Did you want to paint an image in my head of your personal situation? Why? How does that help your argument? If you answer all of these questions honestly then you will see that your making up for something your insecure about. Alphas aren't insecure. Alphas don't need to notify someone that they are laughing because they know that no one really cares and it contributes nothing to the argument. In fact, "LOLing" is rarely typed when people are actually laughing. They therefore do it to portray an image of themselves that is untrue. The question is why? The reason is that it gives them comfort in an argumentative setting by portraying themselves as laughing at an argument of another as to attempt to transfer their insecurity to another by displaying confidence in their own security.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Natural equality and natural hierarchy are coexistent themes. There will always be people who exercise their talents above that of others, and thus, make their way up the ladder higher and faster. Likewise men have always been stronger than women. That's, yet another natural hierarchy that exists in the same sphere of natural equality. No matter how you twist it modern liberalism is about "Social Justice," which is unnatural equality at the expense of natural equality. Nothing is more beta than social justice because it assumes victimhood by virtue of the accomplishments of Alphas.

 

[Billy000]

Disagree with them.

I know this simple minded perspective that demonizes and generalizes ALL liberals flies with your cave man buddies on this forum, but to anyone with an average intelligence or above, it does not hold water. This OP makes you look like an idiot.

As simple as black and white thinking is, it is not realistic thinking. Read a book or something damn. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Bfgrn]

I suppose you don't know the difference between classical liberalism and the modern term of "liberal" which was adopted to make up for the fact that they were anything but. That and progressivism had become a bad marketing strategy for the left. Indeed, they simply changed their label. So I will function within modern labels.

You were laughing huh? Why did you feel the need to type that you were laughing? Did you want to paint an image in my head of your personal situation? Why? How does that help your argument? If you answer all of these questions honestly then you will see that your making up for something your insecure about. Alphas aren't insecure. Alphas don't need to notify someone that they are laughing because they know that no one really cares and it contributes nothing to the argument. In fact, "LOLing" is rarely typed when people are actually laughing. They therefore do it to portray an image of themselves that is untrue. The question is why? The reason is that it gives them comfort in an argumentative setting by portraying themselves as laughing at an argument of another as to attempt to transfer their insecurity to another by displaying confidence in their own security.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Natural equality and natural hierarchy are coexistent themes. There will always be people who exercise their talents above that of others, and thus, make their way up the ladder higher and faster. Likewise men have always been stronger than women. That's, yet another natural hierarchy that exists in the same sphere of natural equality. No matter how you twist it modern liberalism is about "Social Justice," which is unnatural equality at the expense of natural equality. Nothing is more beta than social justice because it assumes victimhood by virtue of the accomplishments of Alphas.

That is a nice way of defining social Darwinism. But even with lipstick it is still social Darwinism.

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

 

[Publius1787]

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Natural equality and natural hierarchy are coexistent themes. There will always be people who exercise their talents above that of others, and thus, make their way up the ladder higher and faster. Likewise men have always been stronger than women. That's, yet another natural hierarchy that exists in the same sphere of natural equality. No matter how you twist it modern liberalism is about "Social Justice," which is unnatural equality at the expense of natural equality. Nothing is more beta than social justice because it assumes victimhood by virtue of the accomplishments of Alphas.

That is a nice way of defining social Darwinism. But even with lipstick it is still social Darwinism.

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

Sounds like what Milton Freidman said at the 1 minute mark of this video [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE]Milton Friedman - YouTube[/ame] . Of course, after that he goes into what makes modern liberals betas.

 

[Pheonixops]

You do understand that my argument is a cultural one ad not a political one right? You cannot tell me that the liberal culture in this country is not a beta culture. In any case, raising awareness of the very Marxist doctrine of Black Liberation Theology and connecting Wright to Obama was a legitimate criticism. No demand for victim status there.

The reason I can type without profanity is that I am confident in myself as an Alpha and don't feel the necessity to ask that profanity to make the case for me. You, on the other hand, are exemplifying beta outrage when you type "LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!!" with not one, not two, but three exclamation points. Three exclamation points? Wow you must be extra certain in your convictions! ..... I think not. Liberal culture is a beta culture. Without victim status they have no party platform and no constituency.

No I don't understand that your "argument is a cultural one ad not a political one ". Isn't one's politics part of their "culture"? The conservative like hannity, limbaugh, beck and the like, were in near hysterics about Reverend Wright's comments that were made in a religious sense.

LOL this is too funny; "I am confident in myself as an Alpha". If you have to go around and tell people that you are an "Alpha" then you are most likely not an "Alpha". I wasn't "outraged" when I typed ""LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!!" , I was laughing at you guys just like I am smiling and laughing while I type this reply to you.

Many if not most of the Founding Fathers were Liberals.

I suppose you don't know the difference between classical liberalism and the modern term of "liberal" which was adopted to make up for the fact that they were anything but. That and progressivism had become a bad marketing strategy for the left. Indeed, they simply changed their label. So I will function within modern labels.

You were laughing huh? Why did you feel the need to type that you were laughing? Did you want to paint an image in my head of your personal situation? Why? How does that help your argument? If you answer all of these questions honestly then you will see that your making up for something your insecure about. Alphas aren't insecure. Alphas don't need to notify someone that they are laughing because they know that no one really cares and it contributes nothing to the argument. In fact, "LOLing" is rarely typed when people are actually laughing. They therefore do it to portray an image of themselves that is untrue. The question is why? The reason is that portraying themselves as laughing gives them comfort in an argumentative setting as it is only a means betas use to attempt to transfer their insecurity to another by displaying false confidence in their own security.

Your supposition is wrong, I choose to use the actual meaning of Liberal instead of the disparaging and ignorant label of "Liberal" used by the likes of George Wallace, William F. Buckley, limbaugh, hannity, et al.

As far as "feeling the need to type that I was laughing". I was simply correcting your silly misrepresentation when you typed, " You, on the other hand, are exemplifying beta outrage when you type "LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!!" ". The fact is that I was laughing at the horseshit you were typing.

 

[francoHFW]

Liberals tolerate everything but hate, greed, lies, and stupidity. Unfortunately, that's all the new bs GOP has...

 

[Publius1787]

No I don't understand that your "argument is a cultural one ad not a political one ". Isn't one's politics part of their "culture"? The conservative like hannity, limbaugh, beck and the like, were in near hysterics about Reverend Wright's comments that were made in a religious sense.

LOL this is too funny; "I am confident in myself as an Alpha". If you have to go around and tell people that you are an "Alpha" then you are most likely not an "Alpha". I wasn't "outraged" when I typed ""LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!!" , I was laughing at you guys just like I am smiling and laughing while I type this reply to you.

Many if not most of the Founding Fathers were Liberals.

I suppose you don't know the difference between classical liberalism and the modern term of "liberal" which was adopted to make up for the fact that they were anything but. That and progressivism had become a bad marketing strategy for the left. Indeed, they simply changed their label. So I will function within modern labels.

You were laughing huh? Why did you feel the need to type that you were laughing? Did you want to paint an image in my head of your personal situation? Why? How does that help your argument? If you answer all of these questions honestly then you will see that your making up for something your insecure about. Alphas aren't insecure. Alphas don't need to notify someone that they are laughing because they know that no one really cares and it contributes nothing to the argument. In fact, "LOLing" is rarely typed when people are actually laughing. They therefore do it to portray an image of themselves that is untrue. The question is why? The reason is that portraying themselves as laughing gives them comfort in an argumentative setting as it is only a means betas use to attempt to transfer their insecurity to another by displaying false confidence in their own security.

Your supposition is wrong, I choose to use the actual meaning of Liberal instead of the disparaging and ignorant label of "Liberal" used by the likes of George Wallace, William F. Buckley, limbaugh, hannity, et al.

As far as "feeling the need to type that I was laughing". I was simply correcting your silly misrepresentation when you typed, " You, on the other hand, are exemplifying beta outrage when you type "LOL, what a bunch of horse shit!!!" ". The fact is that I was laughing at the horseshit you were typing.

So "LOL" didn't mean that you felt the need to tell me you were "laughing out loud." Why type it at all?