Diagnosing the Left

Burt PrelutskySometimes I feel like I’m a research scientist. But instead of pursuing a cure for a dread disease, I keep trying to figure out liberalism. On second thought, it is something of a dread disease. What makes it unique is that it’s only those suffering from it who are unaware that they have it.

But, say we have two brothers raised in the same household. What I want to know is why it is that one will grow up to be honest, decent and intelligent, while the other sibling, who has shared all the same advantages, will turn out to be a Democrat.

That got me to thinking that perhaps we’re all subjects in a great cosmic experiment, and while those of us in Group A were given placebos, those in Group B were given the revolutionary new drugs, which not only caused the usual side effects, such as nausea, impotence and diarrhea, they also deprived the human guinea pigs of their ability to process information, distinguish between good and evil or to ever allow logic to trump their emotions.

As a result, liberals love not wisely, but too well. Like female adolescents, they fixate on the object of their infatuation, and are incapable of recognizing a single flaw in the one they idolize. But instead of the Jonas Brothers or Justin Bieber, liberals go all dreamy when they gaze on Barack Obama.

When George Bush didn’t shut down Gitmo, they called him a fascist. When Obama, after vowing countless times to close it, leaves it open, liberals think it’s cute.

Sarah PalinThe same folks who were certain that the Patriot Act was treasonous under Bush see how essential it is under Obama.

When Bush mispronounced “nuclear” or Palin claimed she could see Russia on a clear day from her front porch, liberals carried on as if he had nuked London and she had broken wind on “The View,” but when Obama refers to 57 states, trashes America’s history and kowtows to Muslims, the Left could just eat him up with a spoon.

When Bush suggested that it might be a good idea if people chose to take control of their own Social Security investments, liberals accused him of trying to destroy America’s senior citizens. However, when the President got Reid and Pelosi to use bribery and intimidation to coerce their colleagues into passing ObamaCare, which would leave the health care of seniors up to bureaucrats, the liberals broke out the balloons and party hats.

When Bush waged war in Iraq, the Left compared him to Hitler. However, when Obama wages war in Afghanistan, the Left gives him a pass, the L.A. Times doesn’t keep a running count of how many American soldiers die fighting Obama’s war and Gerry Trudeau doesn’t devote “Doonesbury,” allegedly a comic strip, to listing the names of the dead.

Now, I acknowledge that this is all supposition on my part. I have no actual proof that liberals are the end result of a laboratory experiment that’s gone terribly wrong.

But on the chance I’m right, I pray that someone somewhere is working day and night to come up with the antidote.


Get your personally autographed copy of Burt’s book!
 
©2011 Burt Prelutsky
Comments? ✏ BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.
☟click the envelope to EMAIL this post.
Need more Burt? Go to BurtPrelutsky.com.

Author Bio:

Burt Prelutsky, a very nice person once you get to know him, has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine. As a freelancer, he has written for the New York Times, Washington Times, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, Emmy, Holiday, American Film, and Sports Illustrated. For television, he has written for Dragnet, McMillan & Wife, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Bob Newhart, Family Ties, Dr. Quinn and Diagnosis Murder. In addition, he has written a batch of terrific TV movies. View Burt’s IMDB profile. Talk about being well-rounded, he plays tennis and poker... and rarely cheats at either. He lives in the San Fernando Valley, where he takes his marching orders from a wife named Yvonne and a dog named Angel.
Author website: http://www.burtprelutsky.com/
  • TOMMY FREEDOM

    ITS BEEN REPORTED THAT QADDAFI GAVE SPEECHES TO REV WRIGHTS CHURCH CONGREGATION

    VIA SATTELITE LINK, PREACHING HATE TOWARD JEWS AND WHITES. QADDAFI WAS REPORTED

    TO GIVE $ 5 MILLION TO FARRACHAN’S NATION OF ISLAM, HOW MANY 10’S OF

    MILLIONS DID HE GIVE TO HIS PAL OBAMA FOR HIS 2008 CAMPAIGN ????

  • David Lawlor

    I have two main issues with hardcore liberals.
    First of all they have destroyed the Democratic party that’s right destroyed your own party. Democratics like Sam Nunn are gone , and Bill Bradly is a non-factor in the party. Look who the Democratic party hold in high regard? Harry Reid and Nancy Polisi are kidding me what a joke.”Food stamps are good for the economy”.Nancey where do they teach that, must be Marxists University or the Ivy league.

    Steel sharpens steel if the Democratics are weak it weakens the Republicans. A strong two party competitive system strengthens everyone, simply put completions is a great virtue it fosters courage,leadership,ingenuity and exceptionalism

    My main issue with the liberals is their message that Americian exceptionalism is wrong and the status qua or below is right.
    Unions don’t take care of the good worker they protect the under performing worker.
    The Liberal message:
    American should not be great ,we should be like Europe.
    American should not be independent or enjoy freedom don’t be proud of your country,be apologetic.

    Liberals both Republican and Democrat need to under this. When you are average you are as close to the bottom as you are to the top.

    Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is doing a great job of sending the message that being exceptional is a choice and a behavior . Leaders have to make tough decisions, show courage. Walker reminds me of Ronald Reagan when he was elected Governor of Cailf. Reagan had to take on huge budget issues, liberal mind set and made tough government funded cuts and came out on top. I want a leader like Scott Walker in the White House.

    • MarioP

      David,

      I’m not going to address all your unjustified claims, except for one. If Reagan and his Republican Senate (1981-1986) cut spending, how did he manage to end his presidency with a massive, record setting increase to the national debt?

      • David Lawlor

        I was referring to the mess Reagan inherited when he was elected Governor of California. But great point. I agree government has grown under both the Republicans and Democrats at roughly 300% and it needs to stop.The private sector is be asked daily to do more with less and this needs to change. “A government for the people by the people” The government’s role is to serve the people not the other way around.

        I personally think Reagan is the greatest president in the history of the United States of America, and I truly believe he could of have reduced government both from a growth and spending perspective. With that said Reagan did do some amazing things.

        30 million private sector new jobs were created by the Reagan administration. “Supply side economics” which reduced taxes and let business re-invest into their business, and guess what it worked. New private sector jobs increase the tax base and stimulate the ecmomey not “food stamps”

        Reagan’s policies stimulated economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment, and strengthen national defense. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression.Reagan brought more minnorites to the middle class than any other President ever.

        So what is it you don’t like about Reagan?

        • MarioP

          David,

          I’m surprised you believe Reagan is “the greatest president in the history of the United State of America”. I’m under the impression you’re pulling my leg here. Let me list some of Reagan’s milestones that can not be overlooked, especially when calling him the greatest president ever.

          – Reagan added more to the national debt than any other president before him. Hence we better enjoyed the best economy we ever had. But did we? More on Reaganomics later.

          – The record setting deficits under Reagan happened while our nation was not involved in a major conflict nor was the nation trying to recover from a major recession or depression. The recession of 1980 was the shortest recession EVER with unemployment rate peaking at only 7.8%, and it ended six months before Reagan took Office.

          – The nation entered a recession six months into Reagan’s first term, and in late 1982 the unemployment rate peaked at 10.8%. Reagan’s recession was the worst recession since the Great Depression, so I’m not sure why you stated that there were no recessions under Reagan.

          Now let us analyze that great economy Reagan is credited for by looking at the following annual economic indicators:

          GDP change = +3.1%
          Inflation = +4.7%
          Stock Market (DOW) = +6.7%
          Unemployment Rate = 7.5%
          Unemployment Change = -0.2 percentage points

          Those are good numbers, but let us compare them to some Democratic presidents, like Kennedy:

          GDP change = +4.3%
          Inflation = +1.1%
          Stock Market (DOW) = +7.3%
          Unemployment Rate = 6.0%
          Unemployment Change = +0.1 percentage points

          Kennedy beat all of Reagan’s numbers except for the unemployment change. What about Johnson’s numbers:

          GDP change = +5.3%
          Inflation = +2.6%
          Stock Market (DOW) = +2.6%
          Unemployment Rate = 4.2%
          Unemployment Change = -0.4 percentage points

          Johnson also beat all of Reagan’s numbers expect for one, the stock market growth. What about Clinton?

          GDP change = +3.1%
          Inflation = +2.6%
          Stock Market (DOW) = +13.7%
          Unemployment Rate = 5.2%
          Unemployment Change = -0.4 percentage points

          And Clinton also beat all of Reagan’s numbers except for the GDP change, which they tied on.

          Finally, let us give Reagan a slight advantage, in addition to his ability to be able to use that federal creditcard of his. Why don’t we throw out Reagan’s first two years from these statistics, since the nation was in a recession for nearly a year and a half of his first two years. So here are the modified numbers:

          GDP change = +4.2%
          Inflation = +3.5%
          Stock Market (DOW) = +6.7%
          Unemployment Rate = 7.5%
          Unemployment Change = -0.2 percentage points

          Obviously these numbers are significantly better than Reagan’s stats for the whole two terms. Yet each of the three Democratic presidents I listed here beat Reagan at three of the five economic indicators, while adding significantly less to the national debt.

          So David, how great were those Reaganomics times really?

          P.S. If you consider the Misery Index a valid economic indicator, of the four presidents I mentioned above, Reagan had the highest MI, even when ignoring his first two years.

        • Bob Hadley

          In addition to Mario’s points, Pres. Reagan supported and signed into law several tax increases (he called them “revenue enhancements”) after he cut taxes, he cut and run (from Beruit) when the going got rough, he supported and signed into law amnesty for illegal aliens and he continually blamed Pres. Carter for the bad economy and everything else well into his first term. In fact, during the 1984 presidential campaign it was almost as if Reagan was running against Carter.

          Reagan’s soaring rhetoric, his supreme and affable good nature and his patriotic demeanor bamboozled a lot of hardline conservatives. Today, he would not stand the scrutiny of the Tea Partiers.That being said, he did some outstanding things.

          • David Lawlor

            Is this blaming the former administration anything like Obama blaming Bush?

          • Bob Hadley

            Very good, David! Yes, but on steroids…and with no backlash!

          • MarioP

            David,

            At least when Reagan came to power and he felt like improving the economy, he had the option to lower the fed rate, deregulate some industries, decrease taxes, and add slightly to the national debt. Does Obama have the option to lower the fed rate or taxes? The fed rate was at 0 in December ’08, and the nation was already given tax breaks by Bush. Could Obama deregulate? Obama had to regulate the deregulated lending and oil industries. Could Obama add to the national debt to stimulate the economy? It wouldn’t have been such a big deal adding to the debt during hard economic times had Bush not been adding to it annually, during normal economic times. But since the nation has become addicted to massive deficits during Bush’s eight years, adding any funds for the recovery to the deficit makes things that much worse. Bush deserves to be blamed for the recession AND the slow recovery. Bush left Obama not many choices.

          • MarioP

            Ah bummer. I must apologize for a mistake I made in the presidential economic stats. The numbers for Reagan’s last six years should have read:

            GDP change = +4.2% (Originally correct)
            Inflation = +3.5% (Originally correct)
            Stock Market (DOW) = +9.8% (and not the original 6.7%)
            Unemployment Rate = 7.2% (and not the original 7.5%)
            Unemployment Change = -0.7 percentage points (and not the original -0.2)

            I guess I got distracted when I copied and pasted Reagan’s numbers from his two whole terms, and I forgot to revise the last three indicators. But the conclusion still stands, that the three Democratic presidents I listed beat Reagan on 3 of the 5 major economic indicators. My apologies.

  • MarioP

    Mr. Burt,

    Thank you for admitting the obvious, you being an ideologue. I believe Conservatives are right sometimes, but the Liberals are right most of the time.

    I’m aware about the examples you posted as Obama disrespecting the nation, but again, I see those as subjective. I myself don’t hold hand over my heart during the American anthem. Apologizing for America’s actions is wrong? Since when? Isn’t that a quality of an intelligent being, admitting wrongdoing and apologizing for it? Not everything the US does around the world is right and fair to other nations, even though it may benefit the US. So if it only takes an apology to make friends of the ones we offended, that’s such a minor price to pay. Don’t you think?

    P.S. “writtenly object” = “object in writing”. But in case you’ve never heard of the word “writtenly”, feel free to look it up on Webster’s online dictionary.

  • http://BurtPrelutsky.com Burt Prelutsky

    Mario–I make no apology for being an ideologue. I believe that conservatives are right and left-wingers are wrong on every issue that matters to me. I wouldn’t make that same claim for Republicans, as I have made clear in other columns. In their case, I only contend that they are preferable to Democrats, though not always by as wide a margin as I would like.

    By the way, there is nothing subjective about my claiming that Obama has kowtowed to our enemies and that he has trashed America’s history. We have photographic evidence of the former and, for the latter, we have his speech in Cairo, as well as his contention that the problem with the Constitution, not to mention the Civil Rights Act, was that they didn’t deal with the redistribution of wealth. There are also a number of speeches on foreign turf in which he has expressed his apologies for America’s actions. The fact that he has mentioned on occasion that we have a huge Muslim population and that the Muslims played important roles in the creation of America are far more objectionable than his reference to our 57 states.

    Burt

    p.s. “Writtenly object”? Where did you come up with that?

    • MarioP

      Mr. Burt,

      Thank you for admitting the obvious, you being an ideologue. I believe Conservatives are right sometimes, but the Liberals are right most of the time.

      I’m aware about the examples you posted as Obama disrespecting the nation, but again, I see those as subjective. I myself don’t hold hand over my heart during the American anthem. Apologizing for America’s actions is wrong? Since when? Isn’t that a quality of an intelligent being, admitting wrongdoing and apologizing for it? Not everything the US does around the world is right and fair to other nations, even though it may benefit the US. So if it only takes an apology to make friends of the ones we offended, that’s such a minor price to pay. Don’t you think?

      P.S. “writtenly object” = “object in writing”. But in case you’ve never heard of the word “writtenly”, feel free to look it up at websters-online-dictionary DOT org.

  • http://BurtPrelutsky.com Burt Prelutsky

    What’s more, Mario, I find it telling that you only glommed on to the “57 states” remark while conveniently overlooking the two far more importants matters I referred to in that same sentence. I guess the best defense for you, as it is for most liberals, is a mediocre offense.

    Burt

    • MarioP

      Mr. Burt,

      The reason why I didn’t writtenly object to your other two attacks on Obama (… trashes America’s history and kowtows to Muslims…) in that same sentence is because they are subjective and not as obvious to support. But the “57 states” is clearly an innocent mistake which only an ideologue would use as an attack on Obama’s intelligence.

  • Konrad Lau

    “Conservatism is a movement perpetually in search of a cause, as there never was one and never will be one. There is no end to it.”
    Apparently, those experimental drugs remove historical reference as well. Listening to this, one would think the War of Revolution should never have been fought.
    “Thank god for Liberalism during the civil rights years, because if it was for the Conservatives, we would still be using separate restrooms.”
    It’s strange how the conservatives during that time were all called Democrats and the ones pushing for equality were Republicans. Tell me again, who was what?
    “There’s nothing of any real substance for the Conservatives to stand up for, so they find things like gun control, abortion, tax breaks for the top 1% of the population, and unqualified and unintelligent Republican candidates.”
    In addition to the removal of historical reference, those drugs also induce an overwhelming condition of denial. At least this commentator can use punctuation and spells correctly. I’ve seen those skills fall by the way all too often when under that same chemical cocktail.

    Burt, you are beating your head against a wall!

    • Bob Hadley

      The War of Revolution? Are you referring to the American revolution? If so, you’ll be embarassed to learn that the American revolution was waged over liberal ideals. The Declaration of Independence was a very liberal document back then. The U. S. Constitution was also very liberal document when it was first adopted.

      The term liberal means “not being limited to or by traditional, orthodox or authoritarian attitudes or doctrines and being open to or advocating new ideas for progress.”

      If your dictionary defines “liberal” as all things bad and coming from Democrats, and “conservative” as all things good and coming from Republicans (sans RINOs), then your dictionary must be liberal, i.e. it gives bad definitions and, by definition, was concocted by a Democrat.

      Yes, 50 or 60 years ago there were many very conservative southern Democrats and some liberal Republicans. (Those liberal Republicans would never have survived in today’s political climate.) But what does that prove, other than that Party lines weren’t so polarized back then.

      Some liberal ideas are good, and some aren’t. Some conservative ideas are good, and some aren’t. Let thoughtful discussion begin.

      Is there an adult in the house?

  • http://BurtPrelutsky.com Burt Prelutsky

    Mario P: I am not supporting Mrs. Palin for the presidency. Not because of her comments about seeing Russia from her front porch, but because I think there are better qualified conservative candidates. As for Obama, his brain fart about “57 states” was one of his better moments when compared to his policies and his conduct during the past 26 months. Between his stimulus plan, his apologies for America, his cash-for-clunkers, his corrupt relationship with public sector unions, the four trillion dollars he’s added to our deficit, his refusal to drill for American oil, ObamaCare, his refusal to indict the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation, his unilateral decision that limiting marriage to a union of a man and a woman is unconstitutional, and his refusal to call Islamic terrorism by its rightful name, I would say that the man’s brain is good for nothing but passing gas. Burt

    • MarioP

      Mr. Burt,

      Can you please tell us what you envision the price of oil will be if the government opens up all the oil reserves?

      Can you please explain to us why Bush2 with his Republican Congress has not opened up those oil reserves?

      Finally, can you please explain to us how you came up with that $4T Obama added to the national debt, since we only went through less than 18 months of Obama’s budgets?

      Thank You.

    • MarioP

      Well, since Mr. Burt is not giving me answers, can anyone else from the “Drill-Baby-Drill” camp answer these questions?

      What do you envision the price of oil will be if the government opens up all the restricted oil reserves, including all the continental shelves?

      Why didn’t Bush2, with his Republican Congress, open up those restricted oil reserves?

      How did Mr. Burt come up with that $4T Obama added to the national debt, since we only went through less than 18 months of Obama’s budgets?

      Thank You.

  • Juliet V.

    Too much was made of the “57 states” remark ( and yes, Mario, it was 57.) I cannot stand BO’s ideology, but I defended him for that slip. He is human, was most likely exhausted from campaigning, and made a human mistake. I do wonder how many liberals would have given Bush, or any Republican a pass on that, though. Speaking of unqualified, I question which qualifications Hillary Clinton possessed to become Secretary of State? Travelling around the world with her ex-pres husband? One more thing, Mario: you must have worked long and hard to come up with that reply to begbie, but it didn’t work for you.

    • MarioP

      Well Juliet V.

      I know Obama said 57, as that is what I said in my post. And I’m glad you understand it was a slip up on his end. Unfortunately Burt didn’t see it that way and compared it to Palin’s lame statement which is far from an innocent mistake.

      And about my post to begbie, I worked on it for about five minutes since I copied most of it. You like? ;)

    • begbie

      I agree that the 57 states thing is no big deal. And Palin, I believe, was just using a figure of speech because Alaska is very close to Russia (for all my fellow public school grads out there).

      I don’t support bashing Bush for his gaffs, and I don’t support bashing Obama for using a teleprompter. All this is garbage.

      The real issue is leadership, and what did it for me was the Cambridge police incident. This is where the President first explained he didn’t know what happened, then explained that it must be because someone is racist. That is not a gaff, but the real man coming out for just long enough to expose who he really is. I cannot support this man any farther than my civic duty demands.

      • MarioP

        begbie,

        I’m glad you too see that “57 states” as an innocent mistake. Who wouldn’t, right?

        Then you continue by saying the real issue is leadership, yet you get turned off by what you perceive to be Obama’s character flaw, based on a minor incident? So which is it? If you care so much about leadership, you must admire Obama’s ability to work with both parties, even though whatever Obama does for the Right, the Right just dismisses as “doing it for the show”. We saw none of such leadership and cooperation quality from Bush2. It was his way or the highway when dealing with both the Liberals and the rest of the world. What a leader the junior was, eh? No character and no leadership skills, yet you voted for the W.

        • begbie

          Minor incident? I think not. When your President first acknowledges his ignorance of the situation, then procedes to not only judge the police action as “acting stupidly” but also to call racism into the mix as the probable cause, I think any rational clear headed human being would be appalled! If you’re not I can’t make you see it. But step back and think on that for a minute, and do it honestly.

          Also, how do you know who I voted for? And when did I sing George W’s praises? When did I describe his leadership qualities at all??? In fact, I was the guy among my friends who continually questioned his policies and decisions. But I now find myself questioning Obama’s even more. That’s where I stand….by the man’s actions, not his “perceived character”.

          • Bob Hadley

            Are you talking about the incident with the Harvard professor and the Cambridge police? If so, I’m unaware that Obama brought “racism into the mix.” Unless i missed it, all he said was that the police acted “stupidly.”

            I agree that it was ill advised for him to charaterize the police action at all, and I’m fairly certain that he regrets doing so. But let’s be fair and accurate. He did not play the race card (as far as i know). Other people did, but not our president, President Obama. The people who did play the race card were not part of his administration, as far as I know.

            If you have contrary information, let me know.

          • MarioP

            begbie,

            I guess I must apologize to you for assuming you voted for Bush2. That was an assumption based on my belief that you probably did not vote for neither Gore nor Kerry according to your political views expressed on this board. But I guess there is a small chance you voted for Buchanan, Browne, Phillips, Hagelin, Badnarik, Peroutka, Cobb, Peltier, Brown, or Calero. Yet you must understand my assumption was an innocent mistake since all the votes for all the other presidential candidates added up to less than 1% in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. (I ignored Nader since I can not see you voting for him.) So I stand corrected, if you did not vote for W. My sincere apologies.

            But back to our debate about one’s character and ability to govern. I can not believe you are making a huge deal out of the Cambridge incident. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m going to go on a limb and again assume you were for Clinton’s impeachment because of his affair and cover up, correct? Now please explain to me how these two MINOR incidents affect you or 99.99% of the nation? Anyone can see how a poor economy affects 100% of the population. Anyone can see how a giant national debt affects 100% of the population. Anyone can see how an unjustified war directly affects our military and their families, and the rest of the nation based on fund that could have been directed towards more beneficial needs. Anyone can see how high gasoline prices affect 100% of the population. Yet you believe a poor comment and a BJ is a major issue. I would love to have your problems.

          • begbie

            Thanks, MarioP. Now here’s how I feel about BJ’s (and anything else).

            I hold the office of the President in the highest regard, the “office” not necessarily the man. I believe the man must meet the expectations of the office, then he gets my respect. So when the office is abused, misused, or otherwise manipulated for personal or political gain and does not positively affect the people….I have a problem with that. And that’s a standard based in simple principals that I do not appologize for.

            This goes for any President in office. And it doesn’t matter who I voted for. My sense of right vs. wrong makes political affiliation irrelevant. This standard applies to any deeds no matter how insignificant or crucial to the nation. Based on my logic, you are correct about the “big” issues, but I’m also correct about the “small” issues that tend to address the character of the men who hold high office.

  • MarioP

    Mr. Burt,

    Since you are comparing Obama mistakenly saying “57 states” instead of “47 states” to Palin’s poor remark about the vicinity of Russia to Alaska, then you really are scraping the bottom of your barrel for criticism. Palin not only said her idiotic comment, she was later given a chance to explain herself and she actually tried to defended her statement instead of admitting having a brain fart. She obviously isn’t aware how unintelligent her comment was. And if you truly believe Obama, or any adult in the U.S. of A., doesn’t know the number of states we have, then I’m questioning your intelligence, but this time from a whole new perspective.

  • TOMMY FREEDOM

    WH & THE LEFT BELIEVE IN DIVIDE & CONQUER, THE FOREIGN & DOMESTIC POLICY IS CHAOS.

    THE 2012 BATTLE CRY IS ” ANYBODY BUT OBAMA “

  • begbie

    Liberals remind me of a friend of mine….a guy who complains every single day of how tired and old he feels. But he starts every single day with a cigarette and a large sweet iced tea from McDonalds (is it really iced tea????). I tell him what’s REALLY wrong, but it will never sink in. He loves that iced tea.

    My point is that a liberal’s judgement is clouded by general narcisism, that everyone is out to get them and that it doesn’t matter what you do…life just sucks. So when it’s time to vote, buy something, or argue politics with a clear thinking conservative, this attitude comes out and it’s guided by emotion over all things.

    Liberalism is a movement perpetually in search of a cause. There is no end to it. Thank god for the movement during the civil rights years, but now there’s nothing of any real substance to stand up for, so they find things like the environment, junk food, political correctness and unqualified activist democrat candidates.

    • MarioP

      Conservatives remind me of a friend of mine… a guy who complains every single day of how in debt he is. But he starts every single day charging more onto his credit card. I tell him what’s REALLY wrong, but it will never sink in. He loves spending money on useless things.

      My point is that a Conservative’s judgment is clouded by general narcissism, that everyone is out to get their freedoms and that it doesn’t matter what they do…because it’s never their fault. So when it’s time to vote, buy something, or argue politics with a clear thinking Liberal, this attitude comes out and it’s guided by his selfish emotion over all things.

      Conservatism is a movement perpetually in search of a cause, as there never was one and never will be one. There is no end to it. Thank god for Liberalism during the civil rights years, because if it was for the Conservatives, we would still be using separate restrooms. There’s nothing of any real substance for the Conservatives to stand up for, so they find things like gun control, abortion, tax breaks for the top 1% of the population, and unqualified and unintelligent Republican candidates.

      • begbie

        Interesting spin, but it doesn’t work both ways. Do you really believe that protecting freedoms is “general narcissism”? Freedom is always under attack because humans are tribal in nature and also naturally gravatate towards a rank/leadership structure. In other words, there will always be humans who want to rule other humans. We have to work hard to be free.

        I’ve met very few clear thinking liberals, and I’ve met a lot of different people from all over the world. But of that few, they all represent their views in a fair and honest way while respecting mine. Good discussion is better than the copy and paste “gotcha” stuff.

        “MarioP reminds me of a friend of mine… “

        • MarioP

          Interesting spin, but it doesn’t work. I do believe claiming to protect freedoms is “general narcissism”. Freedoms may seem like they are under attack, but humans naturally prefer to have freedom, regardless whether they admire a charismatic leader or not. Although there always will be humans who want to rule other humans, the majority of the human race wants to be free. Keeping people in control is hard work.

          I’ve yet to meet a clear thinking Conservatives, and I’ve met a lot of different people from all over the world. None of them respect my views. Good discussion is one that’s honest.

          begbie reminds me of a typical Conservative.

          • begbie

            nice. I’m glad I could help you think for myself.

          • MarioP

            begbie,

            Finally! Some sense of humor from you. I just tried to spin your post to favor the other side, since such unjustified statements can be twisted both ways.

          • begbie

            It’s only unjustified if its made up. I’m just noting my personnal experience. Yours may be different.

          • MarioP

            True, true… some issues have difference justifiable positions, depending on one’s beliefs or how he benefits. But one can’t argue numbers, and the economic numbers favor the Democratic presidents, at least over the last half a century.