What Leftism Does to People

[Wicked Jester]

For the few hypocritical, cognizantly challenged, reading dysfunctional, and brainwashed among us, Klavan did NOT say that leftists are awful people. (The scary thing as that some of these people that can't seem to read and comprehend claim to have college degrees, teachers of children, or be engaged in other careers that influence minds. Shudder.)

Again Klavan did NOT say that leftists are awful people.

What he did say is:
Leftism is bad for people. It makes them awful.

There is a huge difference in those two things.

In the illustration he is using in his thesis, conservatism provokes courtesy, good citizenship, respect for the rights and property of others, and other behavior that responsible grown ups teach and promote. Pretty much without exception the Tea Partiers, 9/12ers, and similar groups have produced such exemplary behavior.

Leftism, however, has produced people such as we see in some of the Occupy groups who are defecating in the street, littering and trashing public and private properties, defacing, damaging, and destroying public and private property, and disrupting the livelihoods of people in the area. In other words, leftism produces spoiled, hateful, insensitive, selfish, bratty, immature human beings demanding that others give them what they want and don't give a flying fig about the rights of anybody else.

Who any sense of propriety would not call that awful?

The conservatives on this thread continue to appreciate the behavior of the Tea Partiers et al and condemn the behavior of the Occupy groups.

The leftists on this thread continue to scorn the Tea Partiers and defend, make excuses for, or deflect from the behavior of the Occupy groups and call this a flame thread. Almost no effort whatsoever to reflect on the topic. Just condemnation for those who think we need to have a conversation about it.

I wonder if we have arrive at a point in which leftism has made it impossible to even have a conservation about this. Or are we already too far gone?

It is well beyond that, Foxfyre; it has been for a while now. The Left is not amenable to reason; their goal is a totalitarian state, and the destruction of conservatism. Therefore, our goal must ultimately be the destruction of the Left. We cannot co-exist with their ideology, nor should we desire to. This can only end in conflict, winner take all. Whether this gets settled through the political process, or eventually is settled by war, we cannot at present know, but the possibility of the latter is growing. I believe, that if it comes to that, our goal must be victory, by whatever means necessary. Meanwhile, we have no recourse but to fight them, and all they stand for, with every lawful means at our disposal.

NO MORE COMPROMISE, NO MORE NEGOTIATION, NO MORE DISCUSSION, NO MORE APPEASEMENT, NO MORE ACCOMMODATION! We can have NO common ground with the Left, on ANYTHING! The Left is the enemy, this is political war, and the gloves are OFF!

This is a perfect example of why the right isn't interested in dialogue with the left. You're at war with us.

I hope you and FF come to your senses soon.

YOu may not like left wing ideas, but we are fellow citizens with rights. We are NOT your enemy.

The war is on you. I'm not joining.

I'm going to vote. I hope you join me.

Damn right we are at war with the left wing agenda.

It's a failed agenda, as we are seeing across Europe. The left wants a complete nanny state, where kids are taught that handouts and government dependency are the way. Where the government owes you everything, and that you owe nothing.

The left wing agenda is a scourge. It's an agenda that should NEVER be allowed to fully take hold in this great country......This great country was founded on the belief of hard work and personal responsibility is the way.

What lefties always seem to fail to understand, is that when the government gives you everything, the government then OWNS you. The government then creeps into every aspect of your lives. The government then tells you why to do it, how to do it, and when do it, all be damned.

WTFU liberals!

 

[Foxfyre]

The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club. ~Dave Barry

So who are more selfish? Those who think government should require all people to live by the liberal ideal of the day? Nevermind that freedom thing or what the unintended consequences might be. As long as the motives are in the right place, it is all good?

Or those who think the government should secure our rights and then leave us alone to enjoy and benefit from the blessings of liberty, self determination, opportunity, vision, and limitless boundaries? People who really don't care what the liberals do but who demand the right to live their own life and form their own society as they see fit? Who see charity as digging into their own pocket and giving of their own labor rather than demanding that the government confiscate the property of others and do it for them?

I expect the idiots and numbnuts to call conservatives names and say all manner of hateful things about us. That's all most seem to know how to do. It does hurt a bit when a friend calls me selfish though and accuses me of being on the wrong side of society, history and the rights of all.

I look around our busy little city here at the many thrift shops providing low costs food, clothing, and housegoods to disadvantaged people at pennies on the dollar--free when somebody needs something and can't pay at all. Every one of those shops was organized and is staffed mostly by conservatives.

I look at the homeless shelters and soup kitchens around town and the yeoman's work the Salvation Army does to give a hand up to the fallen and Love Inc. that every week on every week is rounding up furniture and household necessities and deivering to the family who has lost everything or never had much of anything. All done by mostly conservative staff and volunteers.

I can't think of a single agency targeted for ongoing help for the poor that actually helps people with no fanfare and no expectation of reward or good publicity that was founded by or is staffed by liberals.

I look at the leper colonies around the world, the on going ministries among some of the world's poorest and most desperate people, an amazing orphanage in Juarez, Mexico, the amazing relief work of groups like World Vision that can get to the people when governments can't. Oh the liberals show up now and then for photo ops and a great show of compassion and then leave. The conservatives are there doing the work, hands on, day in day out, year in year out.

Most conservatives believe in actually helping people. Most liberals seem to think concern and motive is sufficient and results are secondary. Liberals support government assistance and don't seem to care that most of it goes to viscious, unscrupulous warlords and other corrupt governments and little, if any, gets to those who desperately need it. At least their hearts are in the right place.

Conservatives think it more important to get results.

Liberals too often seem to think throwing more money at a problem or a government program with a noble sounding title is all that is required in order to be noble.

Conservatives know better.

I prefer conservatism.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Leftism will kill America and the Western World!

And you think Herman Cain is the answer???

I'm not sure if cain is the answer but another 4 years of obama is not the answer.

 

[Rinata]

The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club. ~Dave Barry

So who are more selfish? Those who think government should require all people to live by the liberal ideal of the day? Nevermind that freedom thing or what the unintended consequences might be. As long as the motives are in the right place, it is all good?

Or those who think the government should secure our rights and then leave us alone to enjoy and benefit from the blessings of liberty, self determination, opportunity, vision, and limitless boundaries? People who really don't care what the liberals do but who demand the right to live their own life and form their own society as they see fit? Who see charity as digging into their own pocket and giving of their own labor rather than demanding that the government confiscate the property of others and do it for them?

I expect the idiots and numbnuts to call conservatives names and say all manner of hateful things about us. That's all most seem to know how to do. It does hurt a bit when a friend calls me selfish though and accuses me of being on the wrong side of society, history and the rights of all.

I look around our busy little city here at the many thrift shops providing low costs food, clothing, and housegoods to disadvantaged people at pennies on the dollar--free when somebody needs something and can't pay at all. Every one of those shops was organized and is staffed mostly by conservatives.

I look at the homeless shelters and soup kitchens around town and the yeoman's work the Salvation Army does to give a hand up to the fallen and Love Inc. that every week on every week is rounding up furniture and household necessities and deivering to the family who has lost everything or never had much of anything. All done by mostly conservative staff and volunteers.

I can't think of a single agency targeted for ongoing help for the poor that actually helps people with no fanfare and no expectation of reward or good publicity that was founded by or is staffed by liberals.

I look at the leper colonies around the world, the on going ministries among some of the world's poorest and most desperate people, an amazing orphanage in Juarez, Mexico, the amazing relief work of groups like World Vision that can get to the people when governments can't.

Most conservatives believe in actually helping people. Most liberals seem to think concern and motive is sufficient and results are secondary. Liberals support government assistance and don't seem to care that most of it goes to viscious, unscrupulous warlords and other corrupt governments and little, if any, gets to those who desperately need it. At least their hearts are in the right place.

Conservatives think it more important to get results.

Liberals too often seem to think throwing more money at a problem or a government program with a noble sounding title is all that is required in order to be noble.Conservatives know better.

I prefer conservatism.

Good Lord, are you full of it!!! What did you do, visit all of those places and take a survey?? This entire post is just a hate speech disguised as something else. Listen to your friends. I think they know what they're talking about.

Lastly, based on what I've observed about conservatives, they are not as benevolent as you seem to think.

 

[Foxfyre]

Whatever Rinata, but the thesis of the thread is Klavan's observation that:

Leftism is bad for people. It makes them awful.

And he compared the behavior of the Occupy groups, identified as mostly leftist, with the behavior of the Tea Party groups, identified as mostly fiscally right of center, to illustrate his point.

So far nobody has been able to dispute that with any evidence of any kind. A number of folks have been able to support his thesis with evidence they have observed both in the Occupy groups and the Tea Party groups.

So now various Leftists come onto the thread with accusations, taunts, and proclamations that Leftists are wonderful--13 of them apparently marked the poll up there--and conservatives are awful.

My post was a defense of conservatism. You saw it as more condemnation of leftism. And, in truth, I suppose it was both.

I know many liberals that I have great affection and respect for. There are several I read daily: William Raspberry when he was still alive, Michael Kinsley, Camille Paglia, and even Maureen Dowd, the left's version of Anne Coulter, occasionally has her moments. And there are others.

I have friends, colleagues, associates, relatives, and neighbors who are proud leftists. And some of these do some really nice things for people.

But the fact remains that in these modern times, it is not all of the left, but those from among the left who behave as the badly behaving Occupy groups are behaving. It isn't the Tea Partiers are similar groups. And it is conservatives who are doing most of the hands on day to day work with the poor and less fortunate. And while I know many leftists who volunteer in these programs, I don't see leftists organizing and running them. I do see it as only leftists demanding that the government confiscate the property of others to do more for the poor and who seem to have a deaf ear and blind eye for all the negative consequences that come from that.

So rebut my opinion if you can. It is only my opinion. But I think I have supported it pretty well.

 

[Rinata]

Whatever Rinata, but the thesis of the thread is Klavan's observation that:

Leftism is bad for people. It makes them awful.

And he compared the behavior of the Occupy groups, identified as mostly leftist, with the behavior of the Tea Party groups, identified as mostly fiscally right of center, to illustrate his point.

So far nobody has been able to dispute that with any evidence of any kind. A number of folks have been able to support his thesis with evidence they have observed both in the Occupy groups and the Tea Party groups.

So now various Leftists come onto the thread with accusations, taunts, and proclamations that Leftists are wonderful--13 of them apparently marked the poll up there--and conservatives are awful.

My post was a defense of conservatism. You saw it as more condemnation of leftism. And, in truth, I suppose it was both.

I know many liberals that I have great affection and respect for. There are several I read daily: William Raspberry when he was still alive, Michael Kinsley, Camille Paglia, and even Maureen Dowd, the left's version of Anne Coulter, occasionally has her moments. And there are others.

I have friends, colleagues, associates, relatives, and neighbors who are proud leftists. And some of these do some really nice things for people.

But the fact remains that in these modern times, it is not all of the left, but those from among the left who behave as the badly behaving Occupy groups are behaving. It isn't the Tea Partiers are similar groups. And it is conservatives who are doing most of the hands on day to day work with the poor and less fortunate. And while I know many leftists who volunteer in these programs, I don't see leftists organizing and running them. I do see it as only leftists demanding that the government confiscate the property of others to do more for the poor and who seem to have a deaf ear and blind eye for all the negative consequences that come from that.

So rebut my opinion if you can. It is only my opinion. But I think I have supported it pretty well.

Klavan is a right wing extremest that thinks conservatives are victims. I couldn't care less what he has to say.

 

[Care4all]

just regurgitation of hogwash in my opinion, and the ability to say "my crud don't stink" and "yours does" with a straight face and smile....

sorry...that's how I see it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Each to their own. But however anybody sees it, nobody has yet put up any kind of coherant argument to dispute it.

 

[Rinata]

Each to their own. But however anybody sees it, nobody has yet put up any kind of coherant argument to dispute it.

I think because it is convoluted and not worth the time.

 

[BDBoop]

Yeah. It'd be like trying to argue with a 2 y/o having a tantrum. Until they're back in their right mind, there is no discussion to be had.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Yeah. It'd be like trying to argue with a 2 y/o having a tantrum. Until they're back in their right mind, there is no discussion to be had.

The entire argument that liberals are "awful people" or that left leaning positions on issue cause people to act awfully is ridiculous.

 

[BDBoop]

I can see the rationale a little though. After all, I'm off the opinion that fundamentalist belief systems attract the mentally ill.

 

[Rinata]

Yeah. It'd be like trying to argue with a 2 y/o having a tantrum. Until they're back in their right mind, there is no discussion to be had.

That nails it!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

Each to their own. But however anybody sees it, nobody has yet put up any kind of coherant argument to dispute it.

I think because it is convoluted and not worth the time.

Translation: You and those glad handing you CAN'T dispute it; therefore, it is not worth your time.

 

[Si modo]

Each to their own. But however anybody sees it, nobody has yet put up any kind of coherant argument to dispute it.

I think because it is convoluted and not worth the time.

How is it convoluted?

 

[Foxfyre]

Each to their own. But however anybody sees it, nobody has yet put up any kind of coherant argument to dispute it.

I think because it is convoluted and not worth the time.

How is it convoluted?

It's convoluted because they can't figure out a way to dispute it. They can accuse me, accuse Klavan, or accuse others of us of all manner of uncomplimentary adjectives, but they can't dispute the thesis because it is obviously correct.

The 'awful' part is the only subjective consideration in the thesis, but in order to discredit that, they have to condone what the destructive Occupy groups are doing. And even most of our most radical leftists friends here are not quite up to doing that.

 

[Si modo]

I think because it is convoluted and not worth the time.

How is it convoluted?

It's convoluted because they can't figure out a way to dispute it. They can accuse me, accuse Klavan, or accuse others of us of all manner of uncomplimentary adjectives, but they can't dispute the thesis because it is obviously correct.

The 'awful' part is the only subjective consideration in the thesis, but in order to discredit that, they have to condone what the destructive Occupy groups are doing. And even most of our most radical leftists friends here are not quite up to doing that.

A rebuttal might have to be convoluted, but it certainly isn't.

 

[Foxfyre]

How is it convoluted?

It's convoluted because they can't figure out a way to dispute it. They can accuse me, accuse Klavan, or accuse others of us of all manner of uncomplimentary adjectives, but they can't dispute the thesis because it is obviously correct.

The 'awful' part is the only subjective consideration in the thesis, but in order to discredit that, they have to condone what the destructive Occupy groups are doing. And even most of our most radical leftists friends here are not quite up to doing that.

A rebuttal might have to be convoluted, but it certainly isn't.

And of course there are still two or three here who continue to make convoluted arguments that they can no way support.

It would be an interesting discussion if somebody on the leftist side did come up with a reasoned argument for why Klavan is wrong. But alas, nobody has. They all just defend leftism by declaring conservatism and/or conservatives or at least certain conservatives to be bad/awful but they have yet come up with any way to support that. I wish USMB would recruit some leftists who could debate these things with anything other than 'the topic sucks' or 'conservatism sucks' or 'Foxfyre (or pick your target of choice) sucks' or whatever red herrings or straw men they come up with to deflect the subject to something else. I would love to have this discussion with a Juan Williams or Michael Kinsley or Camille Paglia or another brilliant liberal that I admire greatly.

But oh well.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm off the opinion that fundamentalist belief systems attract the mentally ill.

Considering those who practice a fundamentalist belief system are themselves mentally ill, yes.

Translation: You and those glad handing you CAN'T dispute it; therefore, it is not worth your time.

It’s disputed by the fact that neither the OP nor the cited article’s author has provided a specific example of a representative individual or individuals with regard to the traits alleged.

It is disputed by the fact that the article’s author exhibits poor, sloppy ‘scholarship’ and a poor understanding of an objective, comprehensive method concerning historical analysis. The article’s author’s premise is consequently wrong because it’s predicated on a fallacy.

And it’s disputed by the fact that the article’s author exhibits his bigotry with his hateful reference to ‘violent and despicable “Islamism” eat[ing] away portions of municipalities like a cancer.’

The article’s author’s bigotry, ignorance, and failure to adhere to an objective analytical method render his premise wrong.

As for the OP, her ignorance is already well established, she clearly has no formal training in objective historical analysis, and can’t be held accountable according for failing to understand the inaccurate premise of the article’s author.

Perhaps if the OP weren’t such a blind partisan, however, she might not be so easily duped.

 

[Si modo]

It's convoluted because they can't figure out a way to dispute it. They can accuse me, accuse Klavan, or accuse others of us of all manner of uncomplimentary adjectives, but they can't dispute the thesis because it is obviously correct.

The 'awful' part is the only subjective consideration in the thesis, but in order to discredit that, they have to condone what the destructive Occupy groups are doing. And even most of our most radical leftists friends here are not quite up to doing that.

A rebuttal might have to be convoluted, but it certainly isn't.

And of course there are still two or three here who continue to make convoluted arguments that they can no way support.

It would be an interesting discussion if somebody on the leftist side did come up with a reasoned argument for why Klavan is wrong. But alas, nobody has. They all just defend leftism by declaring conservatism and/or conservatives or at least certain conservatives to be bad/awful but they have yet come up with any way to support that. I wish USMB would recruit some leftists who could debate these things with anything other than 'the topic sucks' or 'conservatism sucks' or 'Foxfyre (or pick your target of choice) sucks' or whatever red herrings or straw men they come up with to deflect the subject to something else. I would love to have this discussion with a Juan Williams or Michael Kinsley or Camille Paglia or another brilliant liberal that I admire greatly.

But oh well.

To rebut it, the violence, among other things, would have to be condoned, as you said. I suspect many do condone that violence, especially based on many posters' rhetoric who fervently support OWS (ie. our recent influx of propagandists); it's a default position in supporting OWS, at this point.

However, Klaven could just have easily written an essay reversing left and right and substituting some whacked-out militia or religious group.

So, in my book, his essay is a wash.

However, what I will take home from it is that more and more entitlements lead us to becoming not much of anything, individually. That's nothing new to me. It's history repeating.