The conundrum of iritated liberals

Why is it that democrats get upset every time someone in the room comes out and says something conservative? Why is that? Or is it just me who's made this observation.

I say this because I'm around liberals all the time, and I keep my mouth shut all the time, and when they say something that's liberal, I just keep my mouth shut, and walk with my head high, knowing I'm not a liberal and I'm a conservative.

Yet when I do mention something conservative, like say I mention that liberalism is the same as socialism, you have liberals in the room being all pissy the rest of the night and refusing to talk to you.

You know, I've made this observation many times. It's like, to liberals it's okay if you're a liberal. If you are you're my best friend. Yet if you admit to being a conservative, you are my sworn enemy. I will debate you and hate you.

No, wait! They won't debate you. They only attack you. They have to attack you because they have no facts to debate you with. So they hate you and attack you. They attack you or they're all moody.

Either that or they tell you to quit discussing politics. Either that or they get up and walk out.

Why is that? It's because you presented an argument that the liberal has no answer to.

It's not all liberals, because I do know some who are like me and who can take things in stride. Yet many liberals I know get so offended at any mention of conservatism.

And I do know some conservatives who are this way too, yet conservatives aren't so defensive as liberals -- as a rule of thumb. A good example of this is you see liberals protesting in Washington all the time, yet it took a 40 year attack on Washington to get conservatives to stand up via the Tea Party Conventions.

Recently my liberal RT coworker sat down next to the Unit Secretary and he joined in the conversation we were having. And the Unit Secretary said something about Obama that wasn't good, and my liberal RT coworker told me the next day that he hates that Unit Secretary.

He said, "As soon as she opened her mouth I knew where the conversation was going to go."

My friends and I were drinking at my dad's cabin, and one of my cousins came out and said he was a supporter of Obama, and Obama will be our next President. Then he got all mad when my dad debated him. My dad did so with a smile. Yet our liberal relative was not so happy.

I'm not a debater. Usually I just let people talk and I lead them on, let them have their fun. Yet if someone says something that goes against the facts, I make them aware of it. It's a fun game I play. Then I shut up.

So when my friend said, "FDR was the best President we ever had. He ended the Great Depression."

I said, "If that's true, then why was there a second stock market crash just as bad as the 1929 crash several years after he was elected? And why was unemployment higher when he left office than when he entered?

"Oh, that's not true," he said defiantly.

"Look it up," I said.

Now I had no intention of getting him angry. In fact, my goal keep everyone happy. Yet a fact is a fact, and a lie is a lie. You can debate opinions, yet a fact is undeniable.

Another good example is John Kerry. When the Stimulus package passed he was all happy with Nancy Pelosi. Yet now that he's pretty confident republicans are going to win a bunch of seats in the 2010 mid-term elections, he says, "Well, you know, people are gonna vote this November in the elections, they just don't know what's going on."

See! People who vote conservative are stupid. Whenever liberals lose elections it's because we voters are stupid. Anyone who opposes liberalism is stupid.

You see, I think liberals and conservtives are smart. Yet liberalism to me is just not the right choice. It never works. The facts show it never works. Yet liberals don't make decisions based on fact. That's the whole problem. They decide based on feelings.

So are liberals irritated easily because they know they are not in the mainstream? Is it because they know issues liberals support are not popular? What's the deal?

Actually, I think the reason they get so upset is because they did not make the decision to become a liberal because of facts. That's the problem. Most people decide to become liberals because of feelings.

That's why liberalism is pretty much a religion with these people. It became a religion because it is attached to their feelings. They believe it's a good thing to redistribute wealth because it "feels good." You cannot debate that.

It feels good to say FDR ended the Great Depression. You cannot debate that. It's religion. It's not so much politics you cannot debate, it's religion. And since liberals have tied their political views to their feelings and emotions, debating them on issues they hold near and dear is like hitting their mother or father.

Religion is emotion. Religion makes you happy. To liberals and socialists and totalitarians around the world, politics and religion are interrelated. To totalitarians their belief in the Supreme being is politics. The same with liberalism.

Most people wear their emotions on their sleeves. To liberals, politics is religion. To Conservatives, God is religion. So if you insult a Conservatives political stance, he's less likely to get upset because his emotions are tied with his religion, and not his politics.

Just between you and me, you don't have to be a conservative to be my friend. Some of my best friends in the world are liberals, some even socialists who still call themselves democrats because socialist and liberal and progressive are bad words in politics.

Yet I'm a conservative, and I just keep my mouth shut around them. If they want to debate, we do so with smiles. If they get all sniffy, then we change the subject.

So why is it liberals get so moody? Is it the fact that hearing the truth hurts? Or perhaps because the truth hurts and they know they have no facts to back up their end, so they become vexed? Or because their religion is their political view.

The later would make the most sense to me, and would also explain why liberals tend to shy away from organized religion and toward secularism.

So why is it that liberals get so moody when there is a conservative view in the open? What do you think?

I will keep a list here of examples of angry liberal comments:

1. Liberal Harry Reid calls his opponent mentally disturbed (11/1/2010).

2. A couple my wife and I hand out with (the wife) said, "I don't want to talk politics, your husband is a republican." I'm evil because I'm republican. Yet I took the high road and said nothing (11/4/2010).

3. to be continued

Progressivism is liberalsim is fascism

Johah Goldberg has written an excellent and intelectually deep book called "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning."

It's quite interesting, because it brings up a concept about liberalism that I had heard of before, but was not aware that it was a form of fascism. Perhaps it's because liberals control the media and write the history books, and have decided to keep this bit of information a little untold secret.

So, if that is the case, then the cat is out of the bag. For, while we have heard that the big difference between conservatism and liberalism is that conservatives believe the world is flawed, that life is unfair, and that "the only real utopia, waits for us in the next life."

Liberals (who also might call themselves progressives), on the other hand, believe that "with a little tinkering" perfection is obtainable, that through the use of government regulations and government programs that a real utopia not only in the the U.S. but in the world is obtainable.

And that is why they place so much faith in creating government programs, adding regulations, and raising taxes to pay for these, and don't worry so much about replications of these on the economy because, in the long run, the goal is a utopia where there are no poor and that all people are paid a fair wage for their efforts in life.

According to Goldberg there are varying definitions of fascism depending on who is doing the writing, but he defines it as such: it is "a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy."

He writes that modern fascism (liberalsim) is different from the fascism of Musolini and Hitler in that American fascism is "smiley faced fascism." He calls it nice fascism. Hence, the smiley picture on the front of his book.

Liberals love fascist ideals, but do not accept the extent that Hitler and Mulolini went to obtain this perfect society. Liberals will not kill off the jews, however they still make efforts to extinguish religion from society by supporting a more sectarian government, one of the "separation of church and state" mould as opposed to one of the "In God We Trust mould." They believe that religion accomplishes nothing more than to hold society back, to be a restraint in the way of creating utopia.

To obtain these goals, liberals seek to use the word "war" not in the sense that Hitler or Musolini did, but more as in a means of obtaining the "will of the people." Here are some examples as Goldberg provided: The war on poverty, the war on cancer, the war on drugs.

And while realists and conservatives will continue to contend that these wars are not winnable, or that there is proof that the war on poverty, for example, has not resulted in a decrease in the number of people on poverty but has actually had the reverse happen as the number of people in poverty has actually increased, liberals (fascists) believe this is no reason to stop the war, because it is the "will of the people" to win these wars. It is to the benefit of society, and the way to a perfect union.

It does not matter that others contend that since the "War on Peverty" per se is not working so lets try some other approach. That is not a good enough reason to stop a war, when the ultimate goal is a world that is better for every party involved -- eutopia.

It does not matter that the U.S. Constitution creates certain "inailenable rights" for the people, that what is more important is that we create a government and a society that is in tune with a world utopia, what is right for all the people of the world, as opposed to what is right for one nation as the United States. And it is for this reason that liberals love the United Nations and support the World Court, both of which, if given full power, would trump the will of the people of the United States by trumping the Constitution of the United States.

And it is for this reason that liberals tend to support judicial activism from the bench, and believe that judges should look beyond the Constitution and form opinions and make decisions (and thus laws) based on what judges outside the U.S. have ruled in similar cases. They support this type of activism, while conservatives, traditionalists, libertarians, isolationsists and the like believe decisions in the U.S. should be soley based on the U.S. Constitution to protect "the will of the people." And it is for this reason that the U.S. has consistently opposed the world court.

Liberals in the U.S. cannot link themselves with the Nazis because that form of fasism, and fascism that occured in the communist U.S.S.R., have since been discredited.

However, before WWII, "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States; the horror of the Holocaust completely changed our view of fascism as something uniquely evil and ineluctably bound up with extreme nationalism, paranoia, and genocidal racism.

After the war, the American progressives who had praised Mussolini and even looked sympathetically at Hitler in the 1920s adn 1930s had to distance themselves from the horrors of Nazism."

"Americans," he writes, "like to think of themselves as imune to fascism by constantly being threatened by it.... but fascism definitely has a history in this country; and that is what this book is about." Fascism in the united states is "'smiley-faced fascism.' Nice fascism. The best term to describe it is 'liberal fascism.' And this liberal fascism was, and remains, fundamentally left wing.

It is left wing despite the claims of the left that the right wing is fascist, as you will hear on occasion that republicans, like George Bush, are Nazi's. Which is part of the plan by liberals to distance themselves from the fascist movement post Holocaust.

To be continued (click here for part 2)

The left went right and won

It is a fallacy that democrats won the 2006 election because of the War in Iraq. The fact that their approval rating is now down to 35% (26% in one poll), is my proof. Wait! According to a September Zogby poll, it's ratings are down to 11%.

Even after democrats sent a bill setting a timetable for removal of troops from Iraq, something they say Americans want, their approval numbers still went down. If Americans really supported the idea of surrendering in Iraq, you’d think the democratic Congress’s approval numbers would be sky high.

The 2006 midterm democratic victory was more than simply a vote against the War in Iraq, it was a vote against big government. A republican president and a republican Congress failed to stop frivolous and wasteful government spending, and the American people were tired of it.

Democratic candidates for congress were aware of this, and ran to the right of republicans on this issue. The democrats won the 2006 midterm elections because they ran on a conservative agenda. Believe it or not, that is why we are looking at a democratic majority right now.

They promised to cut government spending, and that’s what the people want. They want a small, responsible government, not a big bloated beast that government is now.

However, once democrats were in office they misinterpreted this democratic mandate as a mandate against the War in Iraq. So under the leadership of Pelosi and Reid democrats tried to implement a timetable for defeat.

Note: the American public hates war, which is why every wartime president has had low ratings in the polls. Polk did, Lincoln did, FDR did and Bush does. Low polls do not mean Americans want to give up or lose.

What the American people want is a more conservative government, which is what they thought they got when they elected Bush in 2000 and 2004. But he let them down by actually increasing the size of government with his new medicare program, letting Ted Kennedy write an the "No Child Left Behind Act", supporting amnesty for illegal aliens, and the fact he did not veto one spending bill, however frivolous or pork filled, before the midterm elections.

They are sick and tired of their well earned money going to wasteful government programs, something republicans have done nothing to stop since Ronald Reagan.

That is why they voted the republicans into the House in 1994, and ultimately to the Senate. But the republicans did not get the job done. By 2006, Americans gave up on Bush and voted for democrats, who ran to the right of republicans.