There has been quite a bit of discussion here lately about what defines a liberal. I thought I'd use recent events to construct a SIMPLE chart that illustrates the differences between liberals and nutters. Forgive me if this chart has formatting issues. I'm not sure how it will display. There are many more............here are just a few.
Liberal / Nutter
Knee-jerk response is to defend: Martin / Zimmerman
Feels sorry for: Fluke / Limbaugh
Thinks medical care is: A right / A privilege
Thinks 2 people who love each other need: Just love / Only 1 penis.
It would be great if the world had: Religious freedom / One religion
Is being too simplistic a liberal thing? My first reaction to the Martin/Zimmerman case was to wait for all the evidence to be presented, then see what happens. We all have rights, even people you don't like. I hate it, really hate it, when people are tried and convicted in the media. The only knee jerk reaction for some seemed to be to pretend Zimmerman is a white racist and declare him guilty. Is wanting to get to the truth and cut through the crap being put out there defending anyone? No, it's about truly wanting justice and not jumping to conclusions.
I don't see why anyone would feel sorry for either Fluke or Limbaugh. She was bought in at the last minute, not to argue the constitutionality of forcing religious organizations to provide abortions and contraception, but to whine about why government should force it. It made a mockery of the hearing because her testimony was not pertinent. Limbaugh stepped in it and gave the libs a thrill when they could attack him. Why do liberals claim you are denying them something if you refuse to pay for it? Are they aware that they are allowed to purchase birth control, which is cheap, and no one will stop them?
Medicare is a privilege, like all welfare programs. Promoting general welfare and providing it are two different things. Charity is a good thing, though sad when people don't see it as being helped to get on their feet, but a lifestyle. This doesn't include the elderly and disabled.
It would be a far better world if some religions didn't seek to snuff out the others. Having freedom means worshipping (or not) as you wish. If you seek to control or destroy others, you are infringing on their freedom. I've seen Christians attacked again and again over the years for butting heads with liberals on issues, but they don't rule. A few whackos killed abortion doctors and the entire religion took heat and still does. Yet, if a religion is allowing radicals to hide among them and remain silent on the violence, the liberals defend them and caution us not to judge prematurely. We can't even hold individuals responsible, like the Ft. Hood shooter, for their own action if they are Muslim. Only Christians must answer for every person calling themself a Christian.
People will find love, if they are lucky. I am a Republican and believe that monogamy is a good thing and your gender is irrevelant. Whether you call it marriage or a civil union, it is a right for every person. Every couple deserves the tax breaks and ability to cover their significant other on their insurance. I will never understand the controversary regarding gay marriage.
I believe our rights are those things which we are free to acquire and that government cannot stop us from pursuing. They are not things that someone has to give you. No one is entitled to the earnings of other people. People seem to be in agreement on setting aside funds for those in need, but too many have chosen to be needy by making stupid choices.
Again, charity is a good thing and I know no one who is against helping those in need. I know a lot of people who take offense when people take things for granted and feel they are entitled to things they did not earn. I pay taxes and those taxes are spent by government to send low income children to college. Shame that I cannot afford to send my children to college nor do I qualify for aid. My kids rely on student loans, which they pay back once they graduate. So, why don't poor kids also get student loans instead of government grants? After all, once they graduate, they are just as qualified as my kids to pay the loans back, right?
What is more kind, insisting that someone elevate themselves when they are able or encouraging them to remain dependent? Which option would help them soar and which is likely to keep them in poverty for the rest of their life? I choose the more benevolent option.