| Author | Message | ||
     Face Citizen Username: Face Post Number: 496 Registered: 5-2001  |
Let me begin by congratulating the “Straw Man.” Straw, I am one who is extremely grateful that you persist in lending a voice of reason while putting up with the repeated ludicrous efforts to squash your truthfulness. It shows that you care. You must truly be an optimist. I think you must also be hopeful enough to suppose that your comments, as observable as they may be, might serve in some small way to enlighten those trapped in the liberal mindset. Kudos to you for that. I concur. There is plenty of time, starting right now for the truth to set in. This thread may attempt to plead your case, however over the next four years liberals will begin to feel the cold breath of reality on their necks. I suspect that things are going to start changing pretty fast. Including the Democratic Party and individual voters’ own assessments of just who is looking out for them. Many posters on this forum are most likely very proud of their liberal views. They care so much. They feel so much. They want to help so much. Why not? After all, a compassionate and caring person is a good person, right? Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics where individual thought is unwelcome. Conservatives think and their identity is most solidly centered on the individual and not the group. This may help explain why the majority of small business owners tend to be more conservative. They are not subjected to persistent group think. They are entrepreneurs, they face risk and deal with problems directly. For me, liberals are people who are more likely to adopt a group rather than an individual mentality. And we all should know by now that groups are easily manipulated. Take for example, when the call goes out to head to the polls and vote, people with group-obedience mentalities, like union members for instance, are far more likely to react. Liberals buy into what they have been taught; that the real value of any group of people, be it a social group, an employee group, a management group, whatever, is based upon diversity. This is a favored liberal ideal because diversity is based not on an individual's abilities or character, but on a person's identity and status as a member of a group. That is the liberal group identity thing. Diversity! That favorite buzz word of the media, government and academia. It is a word frequently used to describe our town of Maplewood these days. I believe it is used more to correctly to identify our community as being very liberal, which it certainly has become, rather than confirm it’s being diverse. Conservative thought and traditional values don’t receive support as is evidenced by the recent ban on Christmas Music. What is most troubling about the great diversity movement is that group identification, be it racial, gender based, or some other minority status, now means more than the individual's integrity, character or other qualifications. It doesn’t matter if you graduated first in your class, what matters more is if you are a member of a minority group. This is wrong. It promotes mediocrity, not excellence. Brace yourself liberals. You are about to confront terrorists who don’t give a damn about this politically correct academic atmosphere where diversity rules. Cultures are clashing. These terrorists come from a culture where individual achievement and excellence don’t count. No matter what; you are about to learn, remember that diversity is absolutely no replacement for excellence, ability, and individual hard work. From this day on every single time you hear the word "diversity" you can rest assured that there is someone close by who is determined to rob you of every trace of individuality you possess. It could be, “I am from the government, and I am here to help you.” You speak of “rights.” I’ll tell you what of rights, we have very few promised us under our Constitution. Forget it. Forget those rights! I'll tell you what your rights are! Not only your rights, but perhaps your duty. You have a right to live free, and to whatever wealth you are able to produce with your labor. I'll also tell you have no right to any portion of the life or labor of another. Isn’t that a form of slavery? You may think, for instance, that you have a right to health care. Liberals say this frequently. But you cannot receive health care unless some doctor or health practitioner surrenders some of his time to you. He may be willing to do this for compensation, but that's his choice. You have no "right" to his time or property. You have no right to his or any other person's life or to any portion thereof. You may also think you have some "right" to a job; a job with a living wage, whatever that is. Do you mean to tell me that you have a right to force your services on another person, and then the right to demand that this person compensate you with their money? I can't wait for you to point that one out for me in our Constitution. I sure would like to be a fly on the wall when some urban outdoorsmen (that would be "homeless person" for those of you who don't want to give these less fortunate people a romantic and adventurous title) came to you and demanded his job and your money. To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced out on drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is "less fortunate" is to imply that a successful person - one with a job, a home and a future - is in that position because he or she was "fortunate." My dictionary says that fortunate means "having derived good from an unexpected place." There is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol, and the street instead of education and personal responsibility. The Left can create the common perception that success and failure are simple matters of "fortune" or "luck," then it is easy to promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. After all, we are just evening out the odds a little bit, aren't we? That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? (pun intended) He's there by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made in his life. This truism is absolutely the hardest thing for some people to accept, especially those who consider themselves to be victims of something or other - victims of discrimination, bad luck, the system, capitalism, whatever. After all, nobody really wants to accept the blame for his or her position in life. Not when it is so much easier to point and say, "Look! He did this to me!" than it is to look into a mirror and say, "You S.O.B.! You did this to me!" The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact that your choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either success or failure, however you define those terms. Some of the choices are obvious: Whether or not to stay in school. Whether or not to get pregnant. Whether or not to hit the bottle. Whether or not to keep this job you hate until you get another better-paying job. Whether or not to save some of your money, or saddle yourself with huge payments for that new car. And stop blaming the rich. The rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they provide the investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the formation of new businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send millions of paychecks home each week to the un-rich. Second, the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and hatred. Few things are more valuable to a politician than the envy most Americans feel for the evil rich. Envy is a powerful emotion. Even more powerful than the emotional minefield that surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White House interns. Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: "The rich will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it.' The truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes collected. I shudder to think what these job producers would be paying if our tax system were any more "fair." You have heard, no doubt, that in America the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Interestingly enough, our government's own numbers show that many of the poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get poorer. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor. There is an explanation, a reason. The rich, (you must see this clearly or you are indeed hopelessly liberal), keep doing the things that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things that make them poor. Enough of a rant. I’m going outside to shovel. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2868 Registered: 12-2001  |
"Iraq, Syria, and Iran have stable Democratic governments without Nuclear capability" Is there a connection between not having nuclear weapons and democracy? Ignoring the question of whether nukes really bring additional security , I can understand why Iran might want to have a nuke or two. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 61 Registered: 2-2004 |
Face, Why did you type this? See, a lot of us all ready know this and the other side sure as heck doesn't want to read it. Good job. | ||
| Spanish Inquisitor Citizen Username: Sinq Post Number: 43 Registered: 4-2004  |
Face = Ed May | ||
| Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5076 Registered: 4-1998  |
nope | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 3423 Registered: 9-2001 |
"I can understand why Iran might want to have a nuke or two." You can't mean that you agree with Iran, do you? I'm not sure I get your point that "you understand why they want nukes." Even if Iraq, Syria, and Iran have stable Democratic governments, I still doubt the rest of the democratic governments of the world will allow them nuclear capability under any circumstances... BTW, now that's what I call putting a good "Face" on the liberal mentality...  | ||
| llama Citizen Username: Llama Post Number: 662 Registered: 5-2001  |
Face, Your rant all sounds great from your perspective. And that's exactly where the problem lies. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 615 Registered: 12-2003 |
Face, Why did you type this? See, a lot of us all ready know this and the other side sure as heck doesn't want to read it. Good job. He didn't type it. It's YET ANOTHER unattributed Neal Boortz cut-n-paste job: http://boortz.com/more/commencement.html Anyone else see the irony of blindly cutting and pasting the work of an extremist idealogue when it includes phrases like: "For me, liberals are people who are more likely to adopt a group rather than an individual mentality." Something tells me Face doesn't. Face, if you ever read further down in a thread than your own post, here's a message for you: stop stealing. Stealing is bad, m'kay? You're a conservative, so you believe in hard work and honest values and individual thought, right? I can tolerate right wing close-mindedness and ignorance when it's sincerely felt and expressed, but stealing is just plain wrong. There's no two ways about it. And just for the record, adding a custom intro and closing sentence doesn't make you any less of a thief, it only compounds the deception. Dave, if you happen to read this, I think unattributed cut-n-pasting ought to be a bannable offense. Anyone else agree? | ||
| llama Citizen Username: Llama Post Number: 663 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually, it's great to see such a perfect display of foot in the mouth hypocracy that these wing-nuts have. Just proves they can't even think for themselves! They will always screw up and won't even admit it no matter how obvious it is. That's why they can relate to Bush. It gives them validity for their stupidity, but at our own expense. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1001 Registered: 8-2003  |
who gives a ****? At this point, I just assume all of Face's posts are written by Boortz. | ||
| Ukealalio Citizen Username: Ukealalio Post Number: 1758 Registered: 6-2003 |
Hey now stop picking on Face. He's just using methods practiced by our "Commander in Chief" to get out of college. Isn't imitation the most sincere form of flattery ?. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3043 Registered: 8-2003 |
If you don't believe Bush, ask Joe Biden. | ||
| Albatross Citizen Username: Albatross Post Number: 453 Registered: 9-2004  |
Face spoke of liberals who are proud that they are caring and compassionate. But suddenly, he equates compassion with groupthink and a lack of individuality. This connection is not backed by reason; suddenly Face jumps from compassion to groupthink without any connecting idea:
Compassion and individual thought are not mutually exclusive. More to the point, belief that one is compassionate and individual thought are not mutually exclusive. If they were, how could 'compassionate conservatism' survive? Individual thinkers, yet compassionate. Human beings, as are all other primates and countless other species, are social animals. It doesn't matter if they are liberal or conservative. As such, human beings derive confidence and a sense of power from membership in a group, again, no matter their political affiliation or opinion. These are facts of science. But, it could be said, it is not nature alone that influences grouping; people raised liberal are more likely to group than people raised conservative. People raised conservative are more likely to be independent than their liberal counterparts. Perhaps. But consider this: it is common knowledge that the U.S. Military is overwhelmingly conservative. Yet they bond into cohesive units, groups, that look out for each other and show compassion toward each other. Political opinion is not a reliable predictor of the tendency to group. Groups are more easily manipulated than individuals, but the 'mob mentality' does not affect liberals more than conservatives. It affects both equally. To say that it affects one more than the other is self-serving at best. -------------------- On rights and class: Face says that we all have the right to 'live free.' It sounds wonderful, but what does it mean? Does it mean free from government influence, free from tyranny, free from want, free from sickness? What is the standard? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Life: all men and women have the right to good health, such that their lives are as long and productive as possible. Face does not believe in the right to healthcare, but when someone cannot provide for themselves, why are we not obligated to assist them, either in our personal capacity or though the government? The principle of helping those in need is as old as civilization itself. Christ taught that to aid the least among us was to aid him, and to refuse them aid was to refuse it to him. All people are deserving of aid in their need, regardless of their situation and its origins. All men are created equal, the least among us included. Liberty: we have the right to think, speak, express ourselves, proclaim our opinions without the threat of oppression or repression, from the government or from our fellow men. We have the right to justice against those who oppress us by crime, but by the same token the accused has the right to justice by those who might unjustly accuse him. These principles are clearly enumerated in our Constitution. Pursuit of Happiness: let me begin with a definition in terms. Happiness is not a right, but the opportunity to pursue and attempt its attainment are sacred. Face makes blanket generalizations regarding 'rich' and 'poor,' but the truth is between what Face believes and what belief he decries. Some poor are there by their own action or inaction, some rich built themselves up to their status. But by the same token, there are those poor who have been given no opportunity, and rich people who happened to pick the right stocks at the right time. The child who drops out of school if decried as lazy, but do we expect her to abandon her ailing mother? Everyone deserves the opportunity. Clearly there will be some who have had the opportunity who have failed, but who are we to judge who could have made it and who could never have? We can make a rudimentary judgment, but we cannot be sure. So we help everyone who needs it. We make absolutely sure that everyone has the opportunity. We make sure that they have the tools of good schools, excellent healthcare and safe streets. In this way their right to the pursuit of happiness is filled; they receive the opportunity. Be well, Albatross EDIT: Face omitted a substantial portion of the article he quotes. It's interesting to see what he left out. Madden's got the link. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2869 Registered: 12-2001 |
Ajc, Understanding why Iran would want to have nukes has nothing to do with agreeing that it is either a just or wise policy. However, when you are surrounded by enemies or potential enemies and a superpower is acting in a threatening manner, you might want a nuke or two of your own. As a practical matter, the spread of nuclear weapons is a serious problem. I don't think anybody has a good answer. One problem is countries with nukes such as Pakistan who is currently an ally of sorts but could become another Iran under certain circumstances. While we might use force to block Iran's nuclear program, we certainly won't do that with a more or less friendly government. | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 160 Registered: 8-2003 |
Hey, Straw! If neither Vic DeLuca or Ken Pettis will be elected anymore, who will? Are you going to run for TC? | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4336 Registered: 10-2001 |
thanks Face, Yes we represent 21ST CENTURY AMERICA and thank Jesus for that.  Tjohn is a liberal in every sense of the word. Of course Iran deserves nukes. They've demonstrated such self control.  No Vic or Ken..Fine by me. Maybe we can get the folks to finally vote for someone in this town who wants to lead and knows how to along with our current two studs, Fred and Kathy. Art Christensen or Ed May work. Hopefully one or the other makes the move. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 3428 Registered: 9-2001 |
Thanks Straw, but I have to be honest, at this point I'm satisfied with the job being done by Fred and Ian. Honestly, unless the Republican Party in Maplewood can come up with some civic minded, young, intelligent prospects pretty soon, I’d be surprised if they even run anyone against them. My preference would be to see a local non-partisan slate like in South Orange. The only question at this point is whether the Dem’s will have a primary challenge from DeLuca and company. Now that would get my attention!  | ||
| fmertz Citizen Username: Fmertz Post Number: 92 Registered: 5-2001 |
Of course the local Dems are going to experience a primary challenge from DeLuca and company. Not much doubt that David Huemer will lend support to Vic and whomever he/they chose(s) as running mate. (As Straw suggested, there's little doubt that the running mate chosen will represent some minority group or other. They wouldn't have it any other way.) For all of Deluca's headline grabing, and desire to "represent" our community, he certainly never accomplished even half of what Fred and Ian have done. BTW, what has Huemer really done during his tenure? Rather than alienate the police and others, Fred and Ian have done so while listening to opposing views and even changing their approach. God Bless Ian and Fred and Cathy too! | ||
| anon Citizen Username: Anon Post Number: 1623 Registered: 6-2002 |
Ian, Fred and Kathy are liberal Democrats. Boy are you "conservatives" dumb! | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 3430 Registered: 9-2001 |
"Ian, Fred and Kathy are liberal Democrats." ...says who? If you're talking about dumb, speak for yourself. I believe they're just a few hard working local public servants swimming in a sea of left-wing voting liberals living in this town. You must be mistaken, maybe you’re thinking of Vic and David when you say liberal Democrats... |
