Monday, February 21, 2011

What They Want

"This truly sums up the progressive/liberal position. Always apologizing for the USA, denigrating the USA to the world, bowing before foreign dignitaries, sanctioning same-sex unions to undermine society, promoting the murder of children in the womb, etc, etc." ~ Glenn E. Chatfield

In my last post, I encapsulated, "Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility."

Apparently there are those who have failed to comprehend that simple statement. So, I suppose I should elaborate somewhat.

As Glenn Chatfield pointed out, for instance, Liberals want to avoid the responsibility of raising children, thus they support abortion.

They want to avoid the responsibility of being normal heterosexuals, as God intended, so they support the oxymoronic "Gay Marriage".

They want to avoid the responsibility of having to deal with unpleasant people and situations, so they support introducing legislation that would require us, under penalty of law, to accept immoral, illegal, and degenerate behaviors as normal behavior.

They want to avoid the responsibility of providing for their own health care, so they want to force the rest of us, also under penalty of law, to buy the government health insurance, which is really nothing more than an elaborate scheme, intended, in reality, to separate us from as much of our hard earned money as they possibly can.

They want to avoid the responsibility of working for a living, so, they support extending unemployment benefits and endless entitlement programs. As a reminder, Welfare was originally designed to be a hand up, not a hand-out, but Liberals, as usual, have bastardized that intent, much the way they bastardize the Constitution. And why? Because they don't want to be responsible for their own welfare.

They want to avoid the responsibility of funding their own Television and radio stations like NPR and PBS to promote their Liberal agenda, so they support forcing us to pay taxes to fund these stations. Apparently, these stations are incapable of supporting themselves without demanding financial help. Perhaps that should be a clue that their agenda is not too popular.

They want to avoid the responsibility of dealing with possible bankruptcy, so they beg the government to bail them out whenever their businesses suffer financial setbacks because of irresponsible business decisions.

They want to avoid the responsibility of having to defend their indefensible ideological positions so they support the censoring of Conservative speech with proposed legislation called, ironically, the "Fairness Doctrine", which, like everything else they support, isn't fair at all.

Instead of finding another job that will pay them better, they want to avoid responsibility for their own income by demanding the government pay them more, or in the case of Wisconsin public employees, refusing to agree to a minuscule increase in their share of their over-generous compensation package.

I'm sure I have left some things out, but this should serve as some examples of what I was referring to when I said, "Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility."

Actually, I didn't think it was that hard to understand. It only took me a few minutes to think of these examples.

But, I guess that's another avoidance of personal responsibility:

They don't want the responsibility to figure these things out for themselves, so they demand explanations.


Jim said...

"They want to avoid the responsibility of dealing with possible bankruptcy, so they beg the government to bail them out whenever their businesses suffer financial setbacks because of irresponsible business decisions."

This is a Wall Street philosophy, not "liberal".

Other than that, I won't comment on the nonsense that is the rest of your post. Simply pointless. But you guys just go ahead and stroke yourselves.

Mark said...

Yes, Jim, it is pointless to attempt to argue points by simply saying they're "tripe" and "nonsense" without offering any explanations as to why.

In My last post, I didn't give any examples of Liberals wanting freedom of responsibility, and you claimed I am wrong without offering any examples of why I was wrong. So, I accomodated you and gave specific examples.

And you? Still saying I'm wrong, but I notice you still haven't offered evidences or examples to prove me wrong.

So, either make your point with more credibility or don't comment.

Jim said...

Hmmm, "They want to avoid the responsibility of being normal heterosexuals, as God intended, so they support the oxymoronic "Gay Marriage"."

So you expect me to argue with philosophical "talking points" espoused by people who literally believe in a talking snake?

I'm a liberal. I'm an average liberal. Nothing in your post here ascribed to "liberals" is true of me nor the many liberals that I know or whose writings I follow.

There. I've offered my evidence to prove you are wrong.

Your entire theme is liberals avoiding responsibility, but it is based on what YOU think our responsibility to God is. Although I am heterosexual, I accept no premise that says I'm responsible to BE heterosexual. I've raised two children. Obviously I have not avoided accepting that "responsibility".

There is no arguing with people who think people they work with, go to church with and socialize with, people who defend them as members of the military are immoral degenerates.

Always On Watch said...

All this avoiding of responsibility is done on somebody else's dime -- namely, the dime of the taxpayer.

We working stiffs are getting mighty fed up!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

You just keep getting it better.

These are indeed the things desired by the typical liberal, ao you must be atypical.

Jim said...

"These are indeed the things desired by the typical liberal"

Based on what? Your intuition? Rasmussen polls? Ann Coulter? I doubt you hang out with (m)any.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim, I live in one of the most liberal areas in the country and I see this stuff daily. Not only that, I read the daily news, I see what the Demokrats always push into law, I see the government going broke bailing out unions, I see unions in WI in cohoots with the Demokrats fighting to continue slurping up the nanny gov't trough.

Anyone supporting abortion wants to avoid responsibility for what happens with sexual relations.

Rather than accept responsibility for their own actions of homosexuality, they want to force everyone to sanction it or suffer punishment.

I mean, really Jim, tell me what is listed here that ISN'T liberals looking for a nanny gov't to force everyone to support laziness and poor financial decisions, etc.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Oh, and Jim, it wasn't a "talking snake." Yes there are people who don't understand and translations aren't always great, but it was a serpent - which doesn't have to be a snake. And it was being controlled by Satan, which was how it had a voice to speak. But then, that's some of that Biblical stuff you'd have to study a wee bit more.

And all the stuff mentioned by Mark is still summed up by the idea of refusing to recognize God because then one would have to be accountable to Him, and we certainl couldn't have that ruining our hedonistic lifestyles, could we?

Jim said...

"Oh, and Jim, it wasn't a "talking snake" ... it was a serpent which doesn't have to be a snake."

Really? But it could be a snake? Whatever.

"we certainl[y] couldn't have that ruining our hedonistic lifestyles, could we?"

I don't know anything about your hedonistic lifestyles.

Mark said...

You're still doing it, Jim. I say, "Liberals want to avoid personal responsibility", and you say "No, they don't".

Jim, Still no substance to your argument other than disagreement.

You say you know of no Liberals who fit that description. But, it's that very mindset which makes one a Liberal.

It is the avoidance of personal responsibility that defines liberalism, not the other way around.

Jim said...

"You say you know of no Liberals who fit that description. But, it's that very mindset which makes one a Liberal." What kind of nonsense is that?

So it's my responsibility to find the liberals that would support your argument? Or, I'm shirking my responsibility to agree with you?

I don't think so, Tim.

tugboatcapn said...

I would have taken it a bit further, Mark, and said that most of Liberalism is based on the concept of taking things that don't belong to you, and using them for your own purposes.

Abortion takes a human life for the purpose of avoiding the consequences of bad decisions.

Welfare takes resources from those who are working to provide for themselves and their families for the purpose of propping up the lifestyle of those who are not.

Gay Marriage proponents seek to take the concept of marriage, an institution which for all of recorded History has meant the union of one man to one woman, and use it for the purpose of legitimizing the self destructive and morally repugnant "Gay" lifestyle.

Stem cell research, Environmentalism, Taxes, Gun Control, Unions...

Any issue that Liberals and Conservatives disagree upon can be summed up in this way.

Liberals are obsessed with taking what does not belong to them.

Even Jim up there is obsessed with using your blog as his own forum.

Lone Ranger said...

"A talking snake." Hmmm, it seems less and less likely that Jim has ever been IN a church, much less led worship services.

What kind of church does he attend?

Trader Rick said...

I wonder if "jim" could enlighten us as to the location of another blog(s) that he posts to daily, that espouses HIS extreme world view, and the other contributors agree with him as opposed to laugh at him or pity him as they do here...

It would be more fair to have a few people stand up for his twisted ideas so that he wouldn't be all alone, and his arguments could be expanded on by more qualified individuals...

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

tugboatcapn really summed it up nicely. Rabbi Daniel Lapin also makes a good point that the liberal viewpoint is actually all about being anti-God. If God has something to say about an issue, the Left will be against it.

Mark said...

OK, Jim, I don't know why I bother, but I'll clarify:

You complain that my use of the word, "Liberal" is a generalization.

Well, yes it is.

The term, "Liberal" is a general term used to describe a group of people, who, for the most part, with some exceptions who generally adhere to the ideology to which both myself and Tug have alliterated.

In other words, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a pretty safe bet that it is a duck.

Anonymous said...

The problem with liberals, and your definition of them, is that this is just too black and white for the typical liberal. I'm only thinking out loud, but to define a liberal is at the heart of what he hates, unless of course, he is defining those who stand for something as bigoted, etc. Every liberal I have ever met thinks that they are uniquely gifted at being liberal, so to pigeon hole them, just drives them nuts. In the end,they end up fitting the stereotype to a T.

Jim said...

You guys need a cigarette now?

Michael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tugboatcapn said...

You would bitch if we smoked it...