The myth of liberal "compassion"
JohnC
"compassion" is that it's the exact opposite. They are robbing
people of their potential. The dems are purposely creating more and
more dependents. Democrats are taking average, ordinary people and
convincing them that they're worthless. The dems are convincing
average, ordinary people they don't have a chance in this country
because it's unfair. Dems/libs say "It isn't a level playing field.
There's discrimination against this group or that group, and you are a
member of this group or that group."
The dems tell people "It's unfair, life is unfair, Bush, Reagan,
Limbaugh or whatever are going to do their best to take everything
you've got. You don't have a chance. They're going to discriminate
against you, discriminate against you, give jobs to Halliburton in
Iraq. the things the dems say are designed to make people feel
hopeless, and that's exactly what the dems do. The dems spread
hopelessness to as many people as possible - by design and on purpose.
The more people that the dems they can convince are hopeless, the more
people they think will rely on them to take care of the disadvantaged
aspects in life that they face. It is really a crying, criminal shame
what the dems have done to otherwise productive, capable people.
The dems have been demoralizing people for 50 years, ever since the New
Deal. And it is just - it really is - it's depressing at times. It's a
crying shame, because there are so many people in this country so far
more capable than they even know, but because they're lifelong
Democrats and they've been raised to think the way they do. The Dems
have bought into this silly notion that all compassion resides in
people who believe in big government, that compassion doesn't exist in
individuals - in fact, individuals are cheapskates. They are thieves.
Whatever liberals can convince people they are, they'll try. But with
all of this so-called charitable compassion that the liberals claim
responsibility for, they're really hurting people.
Look at what white liberals have done to the black population of this
country. Look at what dems/libs have done with all their so-called
social consciousness. What have they actually done? Take a look at the
illegitimacy rate. Take a look at the divorce rate. Take a look at the
crime rate. Take a look at who's in prisons. You can take it all back
to what all the do-gooders and those with all the social conscience
have done to - and it's actually not just blacks - other minorities and
the poor. They have just stripped them of any confidence, any hope.
It's interesting to look at the historical perspective of various
groups of people. The liberals in this country, their historical
perspective is the Great Depression. They live 70 years ago in the
Great Depression. The media lives eight years ago in the glories and
the greatness of the Clinton years. The civil rights coalitions live
200 years ago in the midst of slavery. And George W. Bush and
conservatives live in the future. As we're trying to fix Iraq and wipe
out terrorism and make this country safe and understand the greatness
that we have achieved and the great things in the future we want to
achieve, the liberal left in this country is locked in whatever pet
issue of the past that defines them.
It's either slavery, it's either the Great Depression, or it's FDR, the
New Deal and Clinton. But they're all stuck in the past, and their
playbook is old - and they're all trying to recreate the old days when
they ran the show in those days, when they were in power. Dems have no
ability to look to the future, and when they do on occasion look to it,
all they do is see gloom and doom.
Dems don't see anything positive; they see nothing upbeat; they don't
see anything good about America. Listen to Madeleine Albright or any of
the liberals talk about Iraq and the war on terrorism. You will not
hear faith in America; you will want hear faith in America's people;
you will not hear faith in America's armed forces; you will not hear
confidence in any of those groups of people.
You will only hear negativism, doom and gloom, and defeatism from dems.
And it's done calculatedly and on purpose. They're trying to make
everybody else feel that way. They're trying to make everybody else
feel doom and gloomy and hopeless. Dems are trying to make everybody
else think that America isn't great. They're trying to make everybody
else feel guilty over what America has been and done in their eyes. And
the sole reason for this is to create massive depression and
despondency out there and then set themselves up as the ones who can
change all this and make it better. That's what the dems are doing.
That's all they've got. Dems have nothing positive to offer. They have
nothing affirmative to offer. Dems can't say, "Vote for us because of
these good reasons." All dems can do is say, "Vote against our
opponents because they're this, that, and the other thing bad." They
are miserable people. They are not happy. They are mean. They are rude.
They are everything they accuse their political enemies of being -- by
two- or threefold.
Brent Bourgeois
You no longer deserve the respect of a reply. You speak of 'liberal
canards' every time anyone makes a point you happen to disagree with,
but your entire book that you've written during these e-mails is one
long Conservative canard that could be straight from any Limbaugh
broadcast. You speak of name-calling, but the names you've called the
various people who disagree with you are FAR to many to mention. Your
posts are so full of cut and paste jobs, that you don't even know who
you are talking to when you're talking. The conclusion is that you are
one more person who loves the sound of their own voice so I am going to
leave the field to you, John. The question is, if the field is empty,
and you're still spewing, is anybody listening? In any event, my
friend, you win.. that's what it's all about John, isn't it. Winning
and losing. You've outlasted another one. Congratulations. You must
be mighty proud of yourself right now.
God bless,
Brent Bourgeois
jvandiver
your rhetoric to some of its antecedents:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/pre1933.htm
The sound of hate rings with a clear tone, when a segment of human
social culture can be referred to as "human debris."
Is it inappropriate for Muslims to distrust American intent? Do 50
million Iraqis feel in the least bit liberated? Do you really think
our presence would be supported if a democratic plebecite were
possible? Or do they just fear being liberated of their complex
hydrocarbons without fair compensation by an oil-junkie nation in
economic desparation?
Review MP Galloway's statement made before the Norman Coleman
Oil-for-Food witch hunt:
Brent Bourgeois
puts plankton in the sea for the bigger fishes), I can't spend another
day sparring with you John.
John, it would be advisable for you not to paint with such a broad
brush. You don't know me or any of the people you are spewing your
venom at. For the record, I voted Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton (oh
my!), and a minor party in the last 5 elections. I have many, many
conservative friends and I know they would be appalled at some of the
tripe you've spewed here. I also know that if I sat in a room of these
'Leftists' that you seem so bull-headed to name, we would disagree on
many things. It makes you look so ugly, John, when you use bigotry to
make your points. You don't have to do that. For every reasonable
point you make, you take two giant steps backwards with your broad
brush of bigotry.
My focus is aimed at people, unlike you, on BOTH sides who don't take
the time to investigate the facts, but take everything they know from
soundbites on Fox, or CNN, or any quickie news outlet. I actually have
more respect for a person like you, John, who, however misguided, at
least has obviously taken the time to do some research.
Go to ANY dictionary or thesaurus, John, and look up the word 'liberal'.
Here's just ONE, from Roget's Thesaurus (that famous thesaurus from the
left!)
From Roget's thesaurus:
Main Entry: liberal
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: giving
Synonyms: altruistic, beneficent, benevolent, big, bighearted,
bounteous, bountiful,
casual, charitable, eleemosynary, exuberant, free, generous, good Joe,
handsome, kind, lavish, loose, munificent, open-handed, open-hearted,
philanthropic, prince, prodigal, profuse, Santa Claus, soft touch,
softie, unselfish, unsparing
I profess to be a liberal Christian someday, John. I'm not there yet.
But I'm working on it.
One more thing before I go, John- it's called the edit button. Really,
you have a great future as a Party apparatchik because you're
intelligent and loyal. But you HAVE to find the edit button, my
friend. These cut and paste jobs just won't do. We heard you the
first time!
Now, to the sound of one hand clapping, I leave you the field.
Good day,
On May 22, 2005, at 7:34 AM, JohnC wrote:
>
JohnC
I can understand the misery and despair on this forum by the liberals.
They have seen the writing on the wall...their goose is cooked. The gig
is up. They fooled a lot of Americans for a long time, while they had
the monopoly on the media...but those days are gone, never to return.
And Brent, dictionary definitions of "liberal" don't absolve you from
everything I said about you in my other posts...I know my posts worry
you all since you have been exposed. But the good news is, it doesn't
matter what you say. I am just trying to help you. The American people
have moved past you and voted against you in record numbers.
I am just telling you as Calvin interested people...do some reading and
learn what is really going in the world. Don't just get your news from
Newsweek and CBS..you saw what happened with Dan Rather-gate and the
lies of Newsweek. Educate yourself at http://www.mrc.org and
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org
You are living in the dark now. Discover the truth and you will laugh
at the old liberal lies you used to believe!
God Bless You!
JohnC
Q. The sound of hate rings with a clear tone, when a segment of human
social culture can be referred to as "human debris."
A. Yes, the sound of hate was heard on 9-11-01 when a group of haters
killed 3000 innocent Americans and others. What would you call these
august members of the "human social culture"?
Leftists at Calvin, the United States is often referred to as a
childish country, an adolescent nation, young and strong and stubborn,
but unsophisticated and unseasoned. Leftists at Calvin, up until a
short while ago, there may have been some truth to this, for there is
one adolescent quality that has long marked the American psyche when
involved overseas, and that is the desire to be liked by everyone. But
Leftists at Calvin, as we mature as individuals, we begin to realize
that not only is it impossible to be liked by everyone... it is, in
fact, repugnant.
Leftists at Calvin, I do not want to be admired by scumbags and liars
and wife beaters. I want to be admired by good and decent, intelligent
and just people, and in order to achieve this I need to do things that
make me despised by their opposites.
Leftists at Calvin, as we began to fight back against the worldwide
terror network, their corrupted ideology, and the states that harbor
them, I and many of my fellow countrymen were shocked to discover all
of the sympathy and affection generated by our status as victims
suddenly evaporated the moment we decided to utilize our power to try
to put an end to this threat. Leftists at Calvin, we were counseled by
our "moral superiors" that terrorism was a fact of life in this new
millennium - best just to ignore it as much as possible, and not make
things worse by poking it with a stick. Leftists at Calvin, and as for
all those new skyscrapers and super-jumbo airliners and all those other
dreams...forget it. Too much of a target. Who would ever want to
inhabit the building replacing the fallen towers? The terrorists will
just blow it up again. Better to build a park or something less
provocative.
How very...French, Leftists at Calvin
Well, we chose a different path, and we have now two years of data to
see the results of this experiment. Saddam captured. He is no longer
building WMD. He is no longer running state-run rape rooms. He is no
longer filling his mass graves. The good and free Iraqi people are
putting a representative government in place. And they are building up
their own forces to defend themselves against the foreign terrorists
that now plague them.
Q. Is it inappropriate for Muslims to distrust American intent?
A. Yes. We are liberators, not conquerers, as we have proven again and
again and again throughout history. We have just proven it again in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
Q. Do 50 million Iraqis feel in the least bit liberated?
A. Yes, but why jvandiver, you think the Iraqi people are not happy we
liberated them? I think you need a hug:
>>http://www.cnn.com/interactive/allpolitics/0502/gallery.sotu.big/content.1.11.html
Q. Do you really think our presence would be supported if a democratic
plebecite were possible?
A. Yes, and it has been supported. The Iraqis voted for a
representative government that supports the American and coalition
forces remaining there as long as it takes to train the Iraqis to
defend themselves. Of course they don't like us there, they are
impatient to be able to defend themselves with their own troops....but
they understand they are not ready yet. But they will be and it will
be a shining success, in spite of the socialist and liberal resistance.
Q. Or do they just fear being liberated of their complex hydrocarbons
without fair compensation by an oil-junkie nation in economic
desparation?
A. Come on jvandiver..no one is buying that tired, old liberal canard
about "Bush is doing it for oil!!!" Why? See below:
Some protesters falsely accuse the United States of attacking Iraq
"for the oil". Nothing could be further from the truth. We do
want the Iraqi people to be able to use their own natural resources for
the benefit of their own people, not for building WMD to be used
against America. That's why we disarmed Saddam Hussein.
Here are some other articles discussing how it's not about oil for
the United States...but maybe it is for France:
No Blood for France's Oil!
There's only one country in this world that's motivated by a lust for
Iraqi oil: France. France wants to avoid liberating the Iraqis for a
whole host of reasons, but #1 on the list is black gold, Texas tea,
bubblin' crude. If the US wanted Saddam's oil, all we'd have to do is
lift the embargo and let him sell all the oil he wants. Or we could
confiscate Kuwait's oil. Our troops are already there, and they can't
stop us - ditto the Saudis. "Well, Bush wants the oil personally."
Absurd. They said the same thing during Gulf War One. Why didn't we
take
the oil then? The supposedly anti-war crowd in France cares nothing for
the suffering of the Iraqi people or Saddam's development of WMDs.
Where were they protesting when Saddam killed a million people in wars
with Iraq, Kuwait, the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs? Iraq has lost between
$100 billion and $200 billion in oil revenue so he can hold onto his
programs to get nukes. Ken Adelman writes in the New York Post, "Iraq's
having gobs of oil shows how principled America and England are. For
unlike the French and Russians, our leaders - both Republican and
Democratic, Labour and conservative - have willingly sacrificed
acquiring
cheaper oil to force Saddam's scrapping his WMD arsenal."
Adelman writes that even Jimmy Carter declared what became known as
"the Carter Doctrine," pledging protection to all the oil-rich Persian
Gulf states after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Quote: "Moreover,
Iraqi oil
is not just there for the grabbing after liberation. Iraqi oil fields
have become as dilapidated as has Iraq under Saddam.... To turn the
protestors on their head: President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair
don't act on the basis of 'blood for oil.' It's Saddam who's been on a
clear path of 'oil for blood.' That now must end."
There is an embargo of Iraqi oil, but remember: it's on the market
anyway. If it were to flood the market, the price would go down - and
all
those evil oil stocks our president and vice president supposedly have
(though they gave up millions worth to serve the nation) would be worth
less. So the next time you hear someone chant this simplistic pap
rather
than face the true danger Saddam poses, tell them: "Yeah, this is all
about oil - to France. France imports most of its oil from Iraq, and
have
sweet economic deals with the butcher of Baghdad." That's the truth, so
speak it!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022503/content/truth_detector.guest.html
Other articles on "it's all about oil?"...
"NO BLOOD FOR OIL/DOING IT FOR GREED"
This was all the rage when I was in college during the first Gulf War
and
it hasn't gotten any better with age. The basic argument goes like
this:
Bush and Cheney are oil guys. They want to get their grubby hands on
Iraq's oil. Ergo, this is a war for oil. I guess it could be stated
with
more sophistication, but why go to all the trouble of putting a dress
on
a pig?
As Peter Beinart of The New Republic notes in his latest - and
excellent
- column (registration required), war is not the best means to get at
Iraq's oil. If all we wanted was a bigger slice of the Iraqi petro-pie,
all we'd have to do, literally, is say so. Dick Cheney could negotiate
that with Saddam over Turkish coffee and a few tortured lackeys
tomorrow.
Saddam has made it known that he'd be perfectly willing to sell a lot
more oil to the United States, and that he'd certainly write up some
fresh contracts if the U.S. would drop its sanctions and forget about
this "regime change" nonsense.
Going to war just to boost Iraq's oil production from three or so
million barrels a day to 6 or so million barrels a day involves massive
risks, both political and financial. A war on Iraq could ruin Iraq's
oil fields.
It could foment instability in the region or a civil war inside Iraq.
It could easily cost the Republicans the White House if it went badly.
In short, if this were all about oil, any good businessman would simply
say,
"Let's just lift the sanctions." And, as Beinart notes, if all Bush
wants is oil, why is the U.S. making assurances to the French and
Russians that they can keep their existing contracts if they approve an
invasion?
In fact, if Bush and Cheney are doing the bidding of the oil industry,
someone needs to explain why the American Petroleum Institute lobbied
for the lifting of sanctions prior to the 9/11 attacks. Also, you might
ask
why oil prices go up when war becomes more likely, and go down when the
prospects for peace improve.
But, in my mind, the most compelling response to the blood-for-oil
argument is a simple one. The people who make it are morons. Oh, I
don't
mean the folks who say that, as a geopolitical necessity, the U.S. must
assure stability in oil markets, or those who (rightly) argue that we
need to lessen the power and influence of the Saudis. I mean the people
who argue - Cynthia McKinney-style - that Bush and Cheney and
Rumsfeld want to get rich off the war. This is the Carlyle Group
argument you hear on Pacifica Radio and in the sweatier fever swamps of
the web. The simple problem with this thesis is that it betrays a
fundamental misunderstanding of rich people.
Rich people who want to get richer do not run for president or vice
president. They don't take jobs as secretary of defense or treasury
secretary. And, for that matter, they don't run for senator - like
John
Edwards and Jon Corzine. Such people may have selfish motives, but
greed for filthy lucre isn't one of them. They may like the power, they
may
want to do good, they may want their names in the history books, they
may
even want to prove something to the third-grade teachers who said
they'd
never amount to anything. But they don't do it to make a killing in the
stock market. Every day, I hear from people who honestly think Bush &
co.
want to invade Iraq to make a few more bucks. These people are either
stoopid or they are trapped in a Twilight Zone where Thomas Nast
cartoons
seem real.
Indeed, this is the problem with most goofy theories about a war: They
reveal a profound naiveté about how government works. If Bush were
doing this for oil or for money or for "revenge" against the man who
tried to kill his dad, he wouldn't be able to say so in a single
meeting. He
couldn't say such a thing to his inner circle, let alone his senior
staff
or the hundreds of people below them who make the policy. Word would
get out. Opponents would leak it. Ambitious men would blow the whistle
and become heroes. Decent men would blow the whistle too.
In other words, Bush would have to keep all of his motives secret from
the people he'd have to convince to go along. Now, since most of these
anti-Bush, antiwar types also think the commander-in-chief is an idiot,
it's hard to imagine how they think he'd be smart enough to pull off a
con like that.
>From "Same Old Tiresome arguments of war", by Jonah Goldberg
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg100102.asp
Michael Medved
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29921
"It's all about oil. "
Not really, but so what? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that our
whole
economy, and therefore our national security, depends upon imported
oil? Why is it even theoretically inappropriate to fight in order to
ensure the
continued delivery of a substance so essential to our survival and
independence? Meanwhile, Saddam's psychotic and despotic regime would
represent a profound danger to the world even if he controlled no oil
assets whatever. The United States imports almost none of its petroleum
from Iraq, but our European "allies" (the French, in particular) get a
great deal of their energy from that country - and therefore ardently
oppose the idea of waging war. On this issue, it's the appeasers -
not the hard-liners - who are "all about oil."
Any other questions I can help you with, jvandiver?