When are people going to become tired of Liberals being closed-minded and arrogant?

I consider myself a liberal first and foremost because I am for helping others and being open-minded. I am also for being scientific, allowing free speech and freedom of religion.

However, I am having a lot of trouble identifying with the liberals nowadays whose motive seems to be more about becoming philosophical zealots than helping others.

In addition, I have some major points I disagree with on their philosophy. I am going to include them here, with ways that I believe they can positively change their position:

I. Under New Liberal rule, people are not allowed to embrace religious culture, which is a natural human phenomenon that allows people to work together and trust each other. The New Liberals should respect other cultures. They are walking on weak ground themselves as far as having a belief system that will hold out more than a hundred years from now.

II. Under New Liberal rule, people are not allowed to speak openly about their opinions. This is ridiculous, as it ensures that the New Liberals have complete control of any argument that they engage in. I believe that as with any respectful party, the New Liberals should engage in arguments and consider other people's viewpoints and most importantly, not consider it a crime to have viewpoints other than their own.

III. Under New Liberal rule, people seem to be literally encouraged to discount friendships and relationships as worthless. Examples of this can be seen on television and in the media. I have seen with my own eyes how this attitude is making people give up on worth-while friendships and relationships. I believe that a stronger liberal party should embrace family (of any sort, even same-sex parents), meaningful relationships and meaningful friendships.

IV. Under New Liberal rule, the man has lost his place. This is not good, because in my opinion, the New Liberals wish to replace the role of the Provider with the State. This is a more complicated issue than I am able to address at the moment, however I believe that a stronger liberal party would help everyone interested rediscover what it means to have their own initiative.

Thank you for listening. Comments are appreciated.

Same time they get tired of Conservatives doing the exact same ?

Silly

reply to post by Kargun


not silly at all....

liberalism is an "easy" and "safe" place to be. That's why people of weak intellectual constitution gravitate toward it.

all you have to do to fit into the liberal clique and be immediately accepted is pay lip service to a few key topics....

eliminating the right of people to own their own firearms
fighting against "corporate greed"
increasing taxes on certain segments of society
sustaining the "right" for people to kill unborn children
etc.

sadly, the typical liberal "password" ideas involve pulling away the sovereignty of individual people. It is very easy for the "liberal" to relate to these types of issues because they are linked heavily with emotion rather than concepts that are higher-order in an intellectual sense .... like the issue of individual sovereignty, which tends to be quite lofty.

This thread and its responses is the epitome of the term ignorance.

Its not a right wing, left wing thing to be closed minded and arrogant.

Its a human thing.

These traits fall on people from both parties and independents; along with those who pay no attention to politics.

When?

Probably about the same time that people realize that generalizing and affiliating based on silly ideas like 'liberal' 'conservative' ' democrat' & 'republican' only serves to further separate people from being able to move forward as a society.


Just sayin....

Originally posted by darkbake
I consider myself a liberal first and foremost because I am for helping others and being open-minded. I am also for being scientific, allowing free speech and freedom of religion.

However, I am having a lot of trouble identifying with the liberals nowadays whose motive seems to be more about becoming philosophical zealots than helping others.

This could be due to the fact that you are not a proponent of 1960s Liberalism, a.k.a. Cultural liberation ideology.

In addition, I have some major points I disagree with on their philosophy. I am going to include them here, with ways that I believe they can positively change their position:

I. Under New Liberal rule, people are not allowed to embrace religious culture, which is a natural human phenomenon that allows people to work together and trust each other. The New Liberals should respect other cultures. They are walking on weak ground themselves as far as having a belief system that will hold out more than a hundred years from now.

This is the key part of cultural liberation, it is the rejection of the nations traditional culture for a reinvented one, a new culture that has never before existed and will be composed of everything and everyone who did not belong to the old culture. Religion, specifically Christianity, is under attack in the West why? They will argue it is outdated and all lies but in reality their real contention with Christianity is that it is the one thing which holds onto and created our traditional culture, so in their eyes it is the only outpost left to be destroyed, finally putting the last nail in the coffin of the West.

II. Under New Liberal rule, people are not allowed to speak openly about their opinions. This is ridiculous, as it ensures that the New Liberals have complete control of any argument that they engage in. I believe that as with any respectful party, the New Liberals should engage in arguments and consider other people's viewpoints and most importantly, not consider it a crime to have viewpoints other than their own.

But do you not see? If they are unable to alienate and isolate you for your beliefs before they spread, surely the populace may agree with you over them. By silencing you, calling you "racist, xenophobic, anti-Semite, Islamophobe, fascist" they are able to put you into an isolated corner from which you have little chance of escape. People, being afraid of having the same label placed upon them, obviously run from your ideas. This creates a perpetual system of psychological fear in people that keeps them submissive so as to never speak up and against the house of cards they call liberalism.

III. Under New Liberal rule, people seem to be literally encouraged to discount friendships and relationships as worthless. Examples of this can be seen on television and in the media. I have seen with my own eyes how this attitude is making people give up on worth-while friendships and relationships. I believe that a stronger liberal party should embrace family (of any sort, even same-sex parents), meaningful relationships and meaningful friendships.

If you embrace family you are rejecting the individual. By rejecting the individual you are embracing pre-modern notions of society, ones wrapped in the blanket of community and social structures for the betterment of society. By placing the state as the sole communicator between individuals this detaches them from the other organizing mechanisms which our culture has relied upon for centuries. The family must be rejected as an infringement upon the rights of the individual, whether that be upon the mother or the father, thus the abandonment of responsibility. This reduces relationships between individuals to merely what one person can get out of the other, more specifically the lure of monetary and material gain.

IV. Under New Liberal rule, the man has lost his place. This is not good, because in my opinion, the New Liberals wish to replace the role of the Provider with the State. This is a more complicated issue than I am able to address at the moment, however I believe that a stronger liberal party would help everyone interested rediscover what it means to have their own initiative.

I am going to quote a piece from a great article from a great website which I frequent. FRP

For, if the individual is the sole entity in society, he will always feel weak, relatively powerless, isolated, and alienated from the means to secure the future for himself. Therefore, the liberal individual will trust no one but the State to secure his freedom, for only the State is large enough to do such a thing, and only the State is “real” enough to do it, since the liberal individual sees any other kind of supra-individual entity as an illegitimate one whose exercise of authority will always appear to him as oppression (e.g. the authority of a church, of a social class, of a sex, of an elite association or club, and finally even of the family). The most liberal phrase of indignation is always, “What gives so-and-so the right to tell me what to do?!” As such, it only makes sense that the “weak individuals” with interests in business would seek (as they have regularly since the Nineteenth Century) to harness the state to advance their unlimited wealth production and accumulation. And, in an inevitable reaction, the “weak individuals” whose sense of freedom is bound up more in the free play of consumption and self-fashioning now turn to ask the State for the securing of their material equality and the administered stabilization of every aspect of their lives (except those few little places where “self-fashioning” needs to be most free, i.e. on the level of taste, consumer goods, and sterile copulation).

reply to post by darkbake


I also identify as a liberal, and I read your post and thought you were talking about conservatives.

Point #1: Liberals that I know DO embrace other cultures and have no problems with the spirituality of others. It is when others try to impose their own beliefs about God or whatever they believe in on others that things get heated--Right down to trying to teach my child about creationism in science class where it has absolutely no basis in observable reality. It seems to me that the conservative message is If you aren't Christian, then you are somehow less deserving of respect. Spirituality is a private matter; keep it at home,keep it at church or keep it to yourself.

Point #2: Liberals DO respect the opinions of others when they make sense. Having different viewpoints are welcome as long as you make your argument logically and with truth-Not politically motivated religious dogma or propaganda spouted by the likes of FOX news.

Point #3: It seems pretty obvious to me that conservatives only value one kind of family; the ideal nuclear family of the '50s...Mommy, Daddy and 2 children. Liberals embrace EVERY kind of family...be they headed by single parents or gay parents or just a group of people who take care of one another.

Point #4: Under "new liberal rule" men have not lost their place...Women have just begun to take their own place as equals to men and entitled to all of the respect they deserve. Men will just have to adjust to not being so dominant anymore and share some power with strong women. Something I feel conservatives have great difficulty accepting if I am to judge by all of the legislation against womens rights to equal pay and organizations that promote women's health and family planning. It appears as if they don't want women to make informed personal decisions about their own bodies.

I could be wrong about many of my beliefs about conservatives, but the message I am getting from the conservative leadership is that if I am not Christian there is something wrong with me, only corporations matter, not people or the environment or anything that does not contribute to their bottom line profits. The message I get from the left is one that values people above profits, ALL kinds of families and beliefs are to be embraced and women deserve all of the same things that men seem to take for granted. I know that all conservatives are not the same, but this is the message that is being sent out. It's the one I'm getting anyway.

reply to post by Kargun


I am tired of conservatives doing the exact same thing, yes actually. The difference is I want to identify with liberals.

reply to post by Misoir


You added a lot to my thread, thank you.

reply to post by ReluctantBlossom


Thanks for your post, too. This is the kind of liberalism I do support (I'm not joking you and Misoir gave me helpful things to read over and I don't find them to be contradictory). It is kind of funny, the small amount of replies I got kind of did a great job of fulfilling their job and filling in all the gaps and giving me a nice piece to read over as a whole, especially you and Misoir.

I think ReluctantBlossom and Misoir are both right. It has never been accurate to define a person as liberal or conservative and then repeat a party line. People are more complex.

In my view, ReluctantBlossom is describing a person that has rejected a single religion but is still spiritual and open-minded. Misoir is describing a 'fighting'-liberal, a person that has rejected religion and intends to use the state to force that opinion upon every other person. In fact that is the conservative view of liberals and liberal view of conservatives (the use of the state to force agreement). In fact the people involved on either side which engage in that behavior are just totalitarian. It would serve everyone better to label those people as that rather than try to paint all liberals or all conservatives with the same brush.

I am very conservative as are most my family and friends and no one wants to force their world view on anyone else; especially through the state which we would rather see have less power. I think true liberals believe the same. Its the totalitarian ego-maniacs latching on to an all-powerful state that we both need to be concerned about.

Originally posted by ReluctantBlossom
reply to post by darkbake

 

I also identify as a liberal, and I read your post and thought you were talking about conservatives.

Point #1: Liberals that I know DO embrace other cultures and have no problems with the spirituality of others. It is when others try to impose their own beliefs about God or whatever they believe in on others that things get heated--Right down to trying to teach my child about creationism in science class where it has absolutely no basis in observable reality. It seems to me that the conservative message is If you aren't Christian, then you are somehow less deserving of respect. Spirituality is a private matter; keep it at home,keep it at church or keep it to yourself.

Point #2: Liberals DO respect the opinions of others when they make sense. Having different viewpoints are welcome as long as you make your argument logically and with truth-Not politically motivated religious dogma or propaganda spouted by the likes of FOX news.

Point #3: It seems pretty obvious to me that conservatives only value one kind of family; the ideal nuclear family of the '50s...Mommy, Daddy and 2 children. Liberals embrace EVERY kind of family...be they headed by single parents or gay parents or just a group of people who take care of one another.

Point #4: Under "new liberal rule" men have not lost their place...Women have just begun to take their own place as equals to men and entitled to all of the respect they deserve. Men will just have to adjust to not being so dominant anymore and share some power with strong women. Something I feel conservatives have great difficulty accepting if I am to judge by all of the legislation against womens rights to equal pay and organizations that promote women's health and family planning. It appears as if they don't want women to make informed personal decisions about their own bodies.

I could be wrong about many of my beliefs about conservatives, but the message I am getting from the conservative leadership is that if I am not Christian there is something wrong with me, only corporations matter, not people or the environment or anything that does not contribute to their bottom line profits. The message I get from the left is one that values people above profits, ALL kinds of families and beliefs are to be embraced and women deserve all of the same things that men seem to take for granted. I know that all conservatives are not the same, but this is the message that is being sent out. It's the one I'm getting anyway.

1) If liberal's didn't give special considerations to muslims and if liberal teachers didn't spend so much time bashing Christianity I might believe it.

2)Right, look at the environmental "debate". The only "legitimate" course of action is welfare for the developing world and crippling socialism/communism for the developed world. No TY

3)Liberal's embrace every kind of family that involves women and children. One woman, two woman and perhaps even maybe 3 women.. Notice a problem yet?

4)BS. I am calling you a liar on this one. New liberals do not support gender equality. They support female supremacy. Look at education. New liberals are still demanding more and more for girl's and women, when girls and women are way ahead of boy's and men in regards to education. Heck new liberals are fixated on the old "gender gap" for boomer women(only a 25 cent difference if you accept their bogus studies), while totally ignoring the $1.25 gender gap in generation Y(and growing). But hey since women are on top it doesn't matter? It is only when men outperform women that there is an injustice? Look at the Domestic Violence law's and DV shelters run and financed by "New Liberal's".

According to them men can never be the victims of Domestic Abuse and domestic abuse in lesbian relationship's doesn't happen. You can try and claim the egalitarian horse but reality doesn't support the check your fingers are writing.

Hell, Look at the stimulus that was 110% controlled by New Liberal's. Half went to the benefit of female dominated professions, some went to New Liberal police and union thugs, and the rest went to the bankers. While the demograph that lost job's didn't receive any help what so ever.

But I am guessing your ignorant of New Liberals like Maria Shriver who all but call's for systematic discrimination against men for the benefit of women and call's for women to make more because they are women(In her latest book an anonymous female executive stated women should make more because they have children). Either way you cut it,new liberals are the most racist, sexist and anti-christian bigots on the planet.

So would you call these people "Neo" Liberals? Kind of like the ohter side of the neocons.

The core of the problem is that there's always somebody who thinks they should be running your life.

Doesnt matter what flavor ideology they subscribe to or what they claim as their motivation.

It's just an excuse to be a tyrant.

no one is 'helping others' as you put it, by forcing me to sending money back to the thugs in the WH.

this does nothing for the 'others' .
this only allows for sitting around the house and being generally lazy.

teaching a man/woman to fish is a far better concept.

from the dems:

History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
Dick Kantenberger
Dick Kantenberger
Gifted Education Writer
Examiner.com
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this.
It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family
and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter
whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.

Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and
card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the
United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the
message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.


Old SS card
An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message.
Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary


2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000


3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible


4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,

Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent


5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
as income.

Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!

------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want
to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve.

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers

reply to post by darkbake


Your OP is a nice post, OP

but the reality is

people will not effect change

until they feel it's necessary for their own survival and interests

Originally posted by korathin
1) If liberal's didn't give special considerations to muslims and if liberal teachers didn't spend so much time bashing Christianity I might believe it.

You mean allowing them to practice their religion at we do with every other religion in this country? You mean allowing them to build a mosque in order to worship if they want? And not giving preferential treatment to any particular religion as some Christians insist the state do (i.e. State endorsement of Christianity as "official" religion)? It's based on this idea that many Christians have that their religion should be given preference in all avenues of public life, and any true equality, or moves towards equality is perceived as "an attack" on their historical/culturally held power up to this point in history.

Originally posted by korathin
2)Right, look at the environmental "debate". The only "legitimate" course of action is welfare for the developing world and crippling socialism/communism for the developed world. No TY

This doesn't even make sense. First of all the country that gets the largest amount of "welfare" is Israel, and this has nothing to do with "the environment". The amount of money going to Israel, the status quo, is kept in place largely through the neo-conservative/neo-liberal establishment policies. Secondly, socialism is not the same as communism...do you even know what these terms mean? Because Europe and the U.S. are both hybrids of a capitalistic/socialistic system. China is a hybrid of authoritarian-communistic/capitalistic system. Please look up your terms and learn what they mean. The vast majority of the developed world is nothing even close to socialistic...they are authoritarian dictatorships, usually with the collusion of multi-national corporations exploiting the land, the people, and natural resources.

Originally posted by korathin3)Liberal's embrace every kind of family that involves women and children. One woman, two woman and perhaps even maybe 3 women.. Notice a problem yet?

This is not even logical. This is like saying, "if we let the children go outside and play, they might go play soccer, but they could also play with knives and try and kill each other, you see a problem with letting the kids go outside to play?". It's just hyperbole used to justify your own homophobia. Get over it. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home has nothing to do with you, nor does it affect your life. This is exactly what the commenter was talking about by "forcing one's moral/religious views onto everyone else".

Originally posted by korathin4)BS. I am calling you a liar on this one. New liberals do not support gender equality. They support female supremacy. Look at education. New liberals are still demanding more and more for girl's and women, when girls and women are way ahead of boy's and men in regards to education. Heck new liberals are fixated on the old "gender gap" for boomer women(only a 25 cent difference if you accept their bogus studies), while totally ignoring the $1.25 gender gap in generation Y(and growing).

NO, you are the ones spreading BS. You are painting a broad brush that is nothing more than a caricature painted by conservatives of what they thing "feminists" or "liberals" view of gender equality is. You make a claim that "new liberals" support this idea of "female superiority" when this is patently false. This is only your paranoid perception. (kinda like the perception that Muslims are taking over the country

So what about education? You blame "new liberals" for this education gap? What ever happened to personal responsibility? It's the fault of the "girls" and "liberals" because boys are behind in education. Well in case you haven't heard, the pay gap is still 75cents for every dollar, so this education gap certainly isn't having any negative effects in the real world. Women still have to work 25% harder just to get the same earnings that men get. Also, I would like to see a link/evidence for this supposed "$1.25 gender gap in generation Y(and growing)".

Originally posted by korathinBut hey since women are on top it doesn't matter? It is only when men outperform women that there is an injustice? Look at the Domestic Violence law's and DV shelters run and financed by "New Liberal's".

According to them men can never be the victims of Domestic Abuse and domestic abuse in lesbian relationship's doesn't happen. You can try and claim the egalitarian horse but reality doesn't support the check your fingers are writing.

And this is just classic. MRA's love to bring this up. DV shelters and DV laws. Aside from the fact that these laws are all written by men (yes, what percentage of congress and state lawmakers/judges/senators/etc. are men compared to women?...you know if things were actually equal, it would be 50/50...but actually it's more like 80/20...and that's being generous in some cases) Anyway, it seems people like you, especially like to claim that the mere existence DV shelters for women somehow means that they somehow believe "men can never be victims of DV and DV in lesbian relationships doesn't happen"...aside from that fact that no one actually believes this, and no one ever says this (but I challenge you to find an example of "feminists" or "liberals" making this claim)...Of course you completely ignore the reason why women had to go out and create these DV shelters in the first place. Again, what ever happened to personal responsibility...if men are complaining of a lack of DV shelters, than why aren't they going out and creating their own shelters, just like women had to do. Why is it these women's fault that men aren't going out and opening their own shelters? Hmmm?

Originally posted by korathinHell, Look at the stimulus that was 110% controlled by New Liberal's. Half went to the benefit of female dominated professions, some went to New Liberal police and union thugs, and the rest went to the bankers. While the demograph that lost job's didn't receive any help what so ever.

More hyperbole do you have any actual evidence to support these claims. Because actually, while you are busy blaming the "evil unions and teachers"...the rest of the country is angry at the wealthy corporations on wall street who tanked this economy and are collecting trillions in bailouts and corporate welfare. Don't let your anti-union/anti-middle class/pro-corporate-wealthy-elite bias show too much there.

Originally posted by korathinBut I am guessing your ignorant of New Liberals like Maria Shriver who all but call's for systematic discrimination against men for the benefit of women and call's for women to make more because they are women(In her latest book an anonymous female executive stated women should make more because they have children). Either way you cut it,new liberals are the most racist, sexist and anti-christian bigots on the planet.

More of your twisted perception? Or lets see the quote where she actually says this, and you can put your money where you mouth is...and my money's on 100 bucks as you spouting nothing more than propaganda & lies here. You last sentence pretty much sums it up perfectly. The political tribalism, the ignorance of coloring an entire group of people one way, and the failure to recognize the obvious flaws in one's own logic...not to mention the irony.