What creates a progressive liberal mindset?
66
What is it that creates a progressive mindset? How is it that two people can hear and see the same thing and both come away with two complete different views?
Take for instance health care, abortion, same sex rights and a slue of other issues. One-person can be told and read all of the points of how it will be implemented and set up and conclude that it will be a total take over of their liberties and freedoms and how it will hurt their lives as well as their fellow mans and see that it is wrong. Then on the other hand, the next person can see it as being a step in the right direction of progressing toward a point where they can feel liberated and free by having someone else think and do things for them and live their lives without being constraint by rules and consequences.
The liberal person probable never feels the sense that they are accepting something from the government without them having to do something in return. Otherwise, you would think they could see that they are being robbed and cheated by the establishment. But no they take their handout and keep right on asking how they can get more.
Don’t the liberal’s ever think that the ideas and policies that they hold so strong to won’t affect them or their families? Maybe they don’t care how the teaching of gay rights and the killing of babies will affect their kid’s views in the future. Even with a total lax of no morals, what so ever it’s hard to believe that a person can come away without a sense of right or wrong. Can’t they see by just looking at other people around them that they are thinking the wrong way?
I guess Michael Savage is right when he says “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder” because it has to be true.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (1)
- Funny (1)
- Awesome (1)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (2)
CommentsLoading...
Thanks for the comment James.
You're an idiot. Your bigotry is a mental disorder.
First of all are you inside? Then take off your hat.
Liberals like me may have a wider view of the world, than others.
When you talk of freedoms, do you want to stop other people freedoms?
We don't want to change you. We don't want you to change us.
Thanks for the comment Hi-Jinks, I'm not talking about stopping freedoms at all. I'm talking about letting the government take over more of our freedoms. That's what the liberals fall for all of the time.
The government is an institution that was created to help the people of this country.
I am a big believer in capitalism but I also think that we need to implement some socialist ideas. And you can call me a communist, or compare me to Hitler, but the truth is that we already have some socialists aspects in our country that work. It is time to stop companies from killing the little guy. This isn't about the government taking over, it's about the government helping the people of this country that need help.
"Maybe they don’t care how the teaching of gay rights and the killing of babies will affect their kid’s views in the future"
The only word that comes to my mind is homophobe, it's people like you that fought against civil rights for african-americans, and it is time for you to accept that there are people different than you and that they should have the same rights you do
And finally, "Liberalism is a mental disorder" really? really?!!? are you so full of shit that you think that people that are different than you must have a mental disorder??!??!? I'm not sure how you get to be as egocentric as that, but how about your open your mind a little instead of being so obtuse?
Next time you're gonna attack liberals, and call say we have a mental disorder, how about you do yourself a favor and just don't because you just sound stupid.
I agree that the term 'mental disorder' is just hyperbole. Some people just feel smug when they can belittle others that way. No big deal.
The crux of the issue seems to be the 'taking away of freedoms'. What freedoms are we talking about exactly? What specific freedom will I lose if, let's say, a health care bill is passed that contains a public option or an expansion of Medicare to those under retirement age.
I think the real issue here is taxation. Right now I pay for my own health insurance and between my premiums and my deductible it costs me about $7500 a year should I ever need to use it. I buy health insurance to protect my assets more than I do to ensure my health. NOT buying this insurance is my choice, but making THAT choice is, for lack of a better term, bordering on 'mental disorder'.
The public option will never cost me that much and there would be NO pre-existing clauses or deductibles. Even if I had to pay a few thousand more in taxes each year for that coverage, I would gladly take it! I'm paying more than that already.
To me, I don't care who it is I have to pay, because I am going to be paying somebody no matter how you slice it. It is simply a matter of dollars and cents. If the public option does anything, it would open up new competition with private insurance corporations and we might see prices drop for everyone.
As it is right now, my insurance carrier of choice does not cover (another word for permit) using out of network doctors and will pay nothing for certain procedures. De facto, the insurance company dictates to me already, via economics, where I can go and what I can get done. Sure, I could pay for those choices out of pocket, but what if the pockets are empty?
Corporations profit from making choice for you that benefit them. Government makes choices based upon the greatest good for the greatest number. Neither way is perfect, but I will always go with the arithmetic. A public option, much like a single payer system, will give me more bang for my buck than does the private insurance carrier.
Peace
Why do we let Insurance companies get between us and our doctors? Why do we let corporation move over seas leaving more and more people unable to improve their standard of living instead lose? Why should foreign based corporation with American figureheads be allowed to buy off all our major media outlets and elections?
Gosh! If only liberals would read the Constitution they would understand that the founders limited the government for a reason.We,refering to self made hard working men and women,do not need or want sugar daddy in Washington wiping our butts and meeting our every WANT.
Julian, great qyuestions but what do we do to solve this problem? Throw everyone out and start over?
AUXILIARY thanks for stopping by with your great comment.
To: progressiveliberalandproud. Bigotry is a way that being politically correct plagues you and a lot of other Americans. Its easy to say "bigot" or "racist" to use as an argument but the reality of it is Americans who just honestly "call em like they see em" get tagged as such because its an easy out, and furthermore you don't know anything about the person you called a bigot other than he understands that the way you think is selfish and convenient. Everyone knows that selfishness isn't a virtue and the convenient path is usually never the right one. Get off YOUR high horse and go reduce your carbon imprint or something.
To: Missouriliberal. Close but no cigar. The government was created to PROTECT the people, not HELP them. You might think well... Those things go hand and hand but you are grossly mistaken. Handouts don't help people, they plague them.
zjohnal: Thanks for the comments, much appreciated. I couldn't agree more.
It's quite ridiculous saying someone who has differing beliefs than you has a "mental disorder." I strongly disagree with your beliefs. However I don't believe you have a mental disorder. People's beliefs differ based on how they were raised, where they were raised, as well as religion, in some cases. No ones political beliefs are wrong. That's whats good about living in this country is that we have the freedom to express our beliefs.
Question: "What creates a progressive liberal mindset?"
Answer: Functioning brain cells and an above-average IQ? And the understanding that we are not simply individuals living in close proximity to one another, but inter-dependent members of a society where helping the least of us helps us all?
@Rose. Please answer me this question.
What stops a Liberal from "helping the least of us" on their own without having to get the government involved in their decision?
I am a Libertarian and believe in very limited government. I also a Christian who helps my neighbors, tithes to my church and volunteers regularly in my community. I do these things. because I want to, not because I am told to. I just don't understand why Liberals think that the govt collecting tax dollars to do these things will result in more needyces to the needy.
I wholeheartedly believe in "helping the least of these" as the bible says I should, but, the when the axtual act of service is done by a govt employee and not the "neighbor" what gets lost is the bond and friendships that results from the act of giving or service. And God loves a cheerful giver. People need people. People don't need govt. How gratified do you feel when taxes are taken out of your check? How gratified would you feel if you helped a friend or someone you barely knew pack their belongings because their house burned down; and when you showed up to help, you brought a case of water and pizza for lunch? Many lower and middle class are taxed to their financial limit. Leaving nothing left to give out of their own hands.
@Steve. I am a conservative and none of the things you wrote. The conservaitves I know care about their neighborhood small businesses and their neighbors not Big Corporations. They are mostly Christians who volunteer in their communities and help their neighbors in need. They are DOING in their OWN LIFE what most Liberals seem to want the GOVT to do. I do not like Big Corporations and so I limit my interacion with them. I am a small business owner and work hard for everything I have. I do not expect a handout and have worked extra hard during this resession, and by the grace of God, have been able to make my bills. And, yet, I still manage to help my neighbors.
I think that what most conservatives have a problem with is this: Why do Liberals think that the charitable act should come from the govt and not the people? Why can't the people who call themselves Liberal just give charitably? Why do you need the govt involved?
Most conservatives believe charity should come from the heart, not taxes.
Can't Liberals just give? This would result in less govt bureaucracy and more money for the people in need. Can't Liberals just donate directly to the charities or organizations they want to support? (PETA, CHOC, NAACP, ect.)
I just don't believe ANYONE should be FORCED to be charitable by way of taxes. You may view that as a selfish remark, but it is not. I AM VERY CHARITABLE. But, I believe thathinkyou did not want to be charitable, you have that right. No matter what others may think.
Now again, it isn't about the actual act of being charitable, it is about having the CHOICE as to whether someone chooses to be charitable.
You may think them selfish. And they very well may be, but is it not their RIGHT to be selfish if they choose to be?
Charity begins at home! From the heart!
As for the sick. I pay for my own health insurance. But, if the company I buy that insurance from is forced by Govt mandate to insure anyone with a preexisting condition (cancer survivor, aids patient, motor cycle racer, skydiver, etc), they will HAVE to raise their premiums across the board in order to cover the cost of those people. (I currently pay almost $800 a month for my family of 4.)
We do not have a RIGHT to health insurance. It is a product that is sold that most have the opportunity to purchase. Insurance companies run on a 3% profit. Pepsi 18%. I truly feel for the sick-I fall in that category. But, I do not feel it is anyones responsibility to pay for my health. My health is MY health. And the govt getting involved is only going to make it worse for everyone. Now those who don't want insurance will be UNCONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED to buy insurance. Many of those people will have to turn off their cable or get rid of their cellphones in order to buy the insurance. The mandate hurts the lower class. They may be very healthy and be willing to suffer the consequence of NOT getting insurance so as to have cable tv or cellphones for their kids. Now, many will have insurance, but no money left for the small perks the middle and upper class enjoy. Isn't it their RIGHT to choose not to buy the PRODUCT of insurance? I'm just sayin'. Yes, that would mean that IF they got really sick they would hsve a hell of a hill to pay or mabe even would die of cancer if they couldn't pay for the treatment, but those would be the pissible consequences of their choice. But it SHOULD be THEIR CHOICE!!!
I love all Ethnicity of People! Conservatives are from every ethnic background. It is a false belief that only (some) Liberals like ethnic minorities. Just as many conservatives like and care for ethnic minorities. People of Ethnic Minority are constantly being told by Liberal tv that conservatives are their enemy. That is not true! Conservatives fight for small govt for all!!! Ethnic minorities are falsly tought that if they want the "American Dream" they need to be liberal. Hard work and passion for what they do is how to achieve the American Dream. Not handouts from govt. I find that immigrants tend to have more passion and drive to succeed than many natural born US citizens. But govt can't give them success. Success is earned, not received.
usalibertarian...amen brother!
This scares me. The Savage Weiner has brainwashed most of you for his and all of his rich greedy capitalist friends gain. Most of you have NO idea what a REAL liberal progressive is! You are brainwashed and ignorant into believing a person that is against most every hard working person in this world.
WAKE UP!!!!! The corporate media is brainwashing and using you as a PATSY to help only themselves and the top 1% that OWN everything, including the crappy TV shows that spews LIES for THEIR gain..NOT YOURS!
I can't believe this bullsh*t. They probably own this website. @#$%^&*
Savage greediness of course comes from liberals. If anyone or any company is successful, of course it's because of greed and chicanery. What else could it be? But of course, the liberals, there they stand with hand extended for the handout from those "greedy bastards." What a crock! Hypocrits! Of course it's possible to get along with a liberal, but not if you don't agree with them and their "my way or the highway" tactics!
we need socialism. charity giving is great but the problem with it is that it is down to individual whims and that is why governments in the west chose to tax us all, so that we may be more equal and not have to sit with a begging bowl waiting for a charity that supports you not feeling owned by the people helping you.in a true democracy people in difficulty have equal rights and ought not to have to rely on the patronage of individuals who may have predjudices ,therefore i think conservatives are incompatible with democracy. the arguments for freedom and choice of whether to help or not is an argument of whether to be cold hearted and mean against a fellow humans need.we live in a society and if let to run its course the conservatives would take the human mindset back to the dark ages which is really fascism where only the strong and lucky survive. thatcher and her fellow right wing people once tried to turn us in to a country where greed and selfishness were moral virtues.
USALibertarian Thanks for your kind comments
THE FINAL "PROGRESSIVE" INSPECTION
A Progressive stood and faced God, Which must always come to pass. He hoped his shoes were shining, As he coyly thought kiss my ass..
'Step forward now, Progressive, How shall I deal with you? Have you always turned the other cheek? To My Church have you been true?'
The Progressive squared his shoulders and said, 'No, Lord, I guess I ain't. Because those of us who are Progressive, deem are selves to be saints.
I've hardly had to work a day, And at times my talk was fluff, and at times I've been violent, Because the world has not had enough.
I took every penny, that wasn't mine to keep... I never worked any overtime, I just took more from the sheep.
I never offered any help, Though at times I shook with fear, how dare them say I don't deserve at times I evoked more fear.
I really do deserve a place, among your people here, we can have a teachable moment, we can drink free beer.
This place that I demand oh Lord, It should really be so grand. I've always expected more than this, I hope you understand.
There was a silence all around the throne, Where the saints had often trod. As the Progressive waited quietly, For the judgment of his God.
'Step forward now, Progressive, You've not borne your burdens well. Walk peacefully right down that street, it leads straight to Hell.'
I'm from Brisbane, Australia. We have an excellent public healthcare here in Oz and although under strain from rapid population growth, it works fine and is a world-class system. But the government also encourages private health insurance as well, which is nowhere near as expensive as in your country. But if you take out private cover, you're still fully covered by the public system, but you can chose to be admitted as a private patient in a public hospital or a private hospital. Although there are waiting lists for surgery in the public system, no-one misses out or is refused treatment if they can't pay, as in the U.S. It's an excellent hybrid of public and private health cover and works really well- you guys should try. It's not socialist, just common sense.
Annon. That is good thanks
SteveB Thanks for your comments. Here in the US we don't want to be penalized or jailed if we don't buy insurance though. That is just one tennant of the government health care.
You have it all backwards. Liberals and Progressives care about the rights of others irregardless of what sacrifices they have to make to insure that the rest of humanity and nature are taken care of. They are less concerned about their own liberties if someone else's rights are in jeopardy. Conservatives on the other hand are so obsessed and fearful that their own selfish liberties will be stepped on that they don't have enough room left in their hearts to concern themselves with the rights of others.
Sorry Koshari, we do care for the rights and liberties of others that is why we get so concerned when the liberals want to take them away. When you say you care about humanity and nature, are you saying you care for the unborned before you care whether a whale or a spotted owl die? Most if not all liberals can't put that hypocrisy together.
>"One-person can be told and read all of the points of how it will be implemented and set up and conclude that it will be a total take over of their liberties and freedoms and how it will hurt their lives as well as their fellow mans and see that it is wrong."<
It's possible that their conclusions are wrong. Perhaps they're reading something into it that isn't there. Death Panels for example. There is no such thing, but claiming there is, certainly gets a lot of press and fans the flames of fear that are necessary to try and defeat a bill that Insurence companies feel threatened by. Unless of course you think that the conclusion is infallibly correct. Is there even a possibility that you could be wrong? Or is your view infallibly correct? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that most people would agree that we are in fact, fallible humans and prone to error. That would mean that this view point is also possibly wrong. Can you demonstrate the truth of your conclusion? In other words can you demonstrate how your liberties and freedoms are being taken over by the government? You seem to be talking about Healthcare. You also seem to be exagerating the issue into what one congressman called Armageddon. Demonstrate how that is true.
When millions of people go without insurence they go without healthcare and resort to emergency rooms to take care of all their needs. That hurts the country more than what you're suggesting and raises the costs for everyone. Also, it endangers the the country as whole. A case can be made that the health and education of our citizens is a national security issue if we are going to compete on a world level. As a patriotic American would you not agree that the needs of our country are more important than your own individual desires? Obviously our military understands that. We are Americans. Not separate islands unto ourselves. We live in a society. Man does not live alone; he is not an isolated individual, but a member of society. There is a little truth in the saying that the individual, like the atom, is an abstraction. The atom apart from the universe is as much an abstraction as the universe apart from the atom. And if the individual maintains his existence by the instinct of self-preservation, society owes its being and maintenance to the individual's instinct of perpetuation. And from this instinct, or rather from society, springs reason. Reason, that which we call reason, reflex and reflective knowledge, the distinguishing mark of man, is a social product." Reason doesn't exist outside of a social environment. It's application requires interaction with others that use reason as well. It's what differentiats us from lower forms of animals.
>"Don’t the liberal’s ever think that the ideas and policies that they hold so strong to won’t affect them or their families?"<
Of course they do. They question why conservatives don't.
>"Maybe they don’t care how the teaching of gay rights and the killing of babies will affect their kid’s views in the future."<
Two points here. 1. Why would you be inclined to deny anybody the very same rights that you have for yourself?
And 2. In Alabama some specialty licence plates say "Choose Life". That's interesting, because the plate is stating that a choice is involved here. Which is true. Those that oppose abortion, choose to oppose it. They are pro-choice whether they will admit that or not. Everything is a choice. Denying anybody their individual rights to make those moral decisions is a complete contradiction on your part with regards to your opening claim of government takeover of liberties and freedoms. It would seem that you have no problem in that area when it (government) intercedes on behalf of your moral views. Those moral views may extend to abortion, but they draw the line when it comes to healthcare for those people in desperate need. You have a very strange sense of morality. It's called having your cake and eating it too, which is a hypocritical position to take.
I'm not a religious man. But considering your views on this moral issue, you probably are. Assuming that's the case, then it would be appropriate to look to someone that had a strong view on this subject. The Gospel attributed to Matthew admonishes believers to practice charity:"Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven." Christ warns against the accumulation of material goods [Matthew 6:16]: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal..." [Matthew 6:19] Matthew also quotes Christ to the effect that "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." [Matthew 6:24]. Lastly, Matthew tells us that, "Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'" [Matthew 19:23-24].
The quotations above - which are recounted in one of the four canonical Gospels - remind us that, in very many respects, Jesus understood his mission to be about more than the advocating for the advancement of one's own self in this world. Your desire for your own individual conserns runs counter to his teachings. His concerns - to the extent that they focused on the lives of those living - were firmly rooted in the conviction that each of us needed to love and do justice to one another. Justice cannot be served when you deny basic healthcare to those who cannot afford it do the cost structure of companies that profit from the sickness of people. Nor is justice served by denying the rights that you have because you take issue with their gender preferences. Nor is justice served by imposing your contradictory sense of morality upon others that don't share that view which can't be demonstrated as being true, and thereby making yourself a willing partner in governmental seizure of freedoms and liberties...the very thing that you fear.
>"USALibertarian 5 months ago
>"@Rose. Please answer me this question.What stops a Liberal from "helping the least of us" on their own without having to get the government involved in their decision?"<
The answer should be obvious. One person can only do so much. I don't think that it's possible for one person to assist 40 million others in need. I have absolutely no problem with seeing my tax dollars goint to something of that nature. We've spent close to a trillion on rebuilding Iraq. Why are the Iraqi's more important than Americans when it comes to securing their future?
>" I also a Christian who helps my neighbors, tithes to my church and volunteers regularly in my community. I do these things. because I want to, not because I am told to."<
That's very nice of you, but unfortunately it doesnt' solve the problems of poverty on the massive scale that we find in this country.
>" I wholeheartedly believe in "helping the least of these" as the bible says I should, but, the when the axtual act of service is done by a govt employee and not the "neighbor" what gets lost is the bond and friendships that results from the act of giving or service."<
What makes that true? Is it not possible that the government employee happens to go to church on a regular basis and sees his job as an even greater opportunity to help others on a much larger scale. Or is it some sort of self gratification that is missing by not having that personal contact that insures that the other person know that it was him that helped him. If the issue is helping people, then why is it important for those getting the help to know that it was YOU that helped them. Do you really need that? When you say "what gets lost is the bond and friendships that results from the act of giving or service." you're citing a selfish motive that undermines the very act of giving. It isn't important to make that person aware of your largess. If what you're giving comes from the heart, then you don't need some kind of acknowledgement of it. The act of giving is selfless. Not selfish.
>"How gratified do you feel when taxes are taken out of your check?"<
I have no problem with that at all. Nothing in life is free. It all comes with a cost, including living in America. It's a small price to pay for the privilige of living here. This country provides you with enormous opportunity that you couldn't find anywhere else. I willingly pay for access to that kind of opportunity.
>"Why do Liberals think that the charitable act should come from the govt and not the people?"<
I seem to recall the phrase, "Government of the people, by the people and for the people". You're describing some separate monolithic entity that isn't real. Our government IS the people. We create it. We make it work for the greatest good of the people. It's fashionable these days to target our government as the enemy. When it's that very government that provides the environment for your business to exist and succeed.
>"Most conservatives believe charity should come from the heart, not taxes."<
But it really doesn't. Conservatives require an acknowledgement of their charity. That isn't from the heart. You would do it anonomously if it were. You need some kind of personal "tip of the hat" I suppose to make yourself feel good. I don't think that's what Christ had in mind. If I know that my tax dollars are going to help the poor that's all that matters. Not making certain that they know that it was me. The issue is helping people. Not making them aware of who helped them for some ego gratification that's completely at odds with Christ teachings.
>"Can't Liberals just give?"<
They do. What makes you think that they don't. You're casting a very large sweeping generalization here. By your question you seem to be implying that liberals don't give. Would you like examples? I could give you quite a few.
>"Can't Liberals just donate directly to the charities or organizations they want to support? (PETA, CHOC, NAACP, ect.)"<
hmmmm. let me think about that. They do.
Lets look at the Daniel Pearl Foundation. You remember Daniel Pearl dont' you? You should.
Since the Foundation's Inception in February of 2002:
$100,000 and over
Dr. & Mrs. Judea and Ruth Pearl
Dow Jones & Company
The Skirball Foundation
Mr. Michael Morhaime
Jolie-Pitt Foundation ( that would be Brad Pitt and Anjolina Jolie)
$50,000 and over
Microsoft Corporation (Bill Gates)
The Samuel Bronfman Foundation
Ms. Christiane Amanpour _ CNN Journalist
Ethics and Excellence in
Journalism Foundation
La Fondation André Lévy
The Flora Family Foundation
The Skoll Foundation
$25,000 and over
Mr. Walter B. Hewlett
The Los Angeles Times
The Cook Family in Memory of
Mrs. Jane B. Cook
$10,000 and over
Mr. Kenneth Neil Cukier
Mr. Paul Steiger
Hebrew Union College/Joseph Prize
Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund
The New York Times Company
Foundation Mr. Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.
GM Foundation
Mr. Mortimer B. Zuckerman
Palmer Walker Foundation
$5,000 and over
Mr. Peter L. Buttenweiser -Tides Foundation (Beck hates them. Because of Becks words, Byron Williams attempted to murder people at the Tides Foundtion)
Los Angeles Times Editorial Staff
Mr. Alan Kuhn
Mr. & Mrs. Ted and Lynn Leonsis
Mr. & Mrs. Edwin and Penelope
Peskowitz
Koret Foundation - Koret Fund
Mr. Donald E. Graham
Dr. & Mrs. Ronald and Beth
Dozoretz
FedEx Services
Cox Foundation, Inc.
The Economist Newspaper, Ltd.
Karen & Eric Pulaski Philanthropic
Fund
Pro-Bono Supporters
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Ms. Shari Leinwand
Mr. Lawrence Ulman
Ms. Sascha Gleckler
Mr. David Egdal
Wolff & Samson PC
Mr. Peter Nussbaum
Loeb & Loeb LLP
Mr. Rebel Roy Steiner
White, O'Connor, Curry & Avanzado LLP
Mr. Lee Brenner
Bay, Sherman, Craig & Goldstein LLP
Mr. Michael Sherman, Partner
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
Mr. Eric W. Hagen, Partner
Sitrick and Company
Mr. Michael Sitrick
360 Marketing Strategy &
Communications
Mr. Rick Cohn, Partner
Mr. Nick de Sherbinin, Partner
Rosenbloom & Rosenbloom LLP
Mr. Jonathan L. Rosenbloom
Alexander Auerbach & Co
Mr. Alexander Auerbach
Reservations Tonight
Mrs. Joan Simon
Dell, Inc.
CoolerEmail
These people sit on the Board of the Foundation donating their time and name for fundraising.
HONORARY BOARD
Christiane Amanpour
President William J. Clinton
Abdul Sattar Edhi
Danny Gill
John Hennessy
Ted Koppel
Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan
Sari Nusseibeh
Mariane Pearl
Itzhak Perlman
Rabbi Harold Schulweiss
Craig Sherman
Paul Steiger
Elie Wiesel
The purpose of the foundation is to promote tolerance and understanding to bridge the cultural divide that leads to horrible acts of terrorism and brutality. The very thing that cost Danny Pearl his life.The Daniel Pearl Foundation has been formed by Danny's family and friends to continue Danny's mission and to address the root causes of this tragedy, in the spirit, style, and principles that shaped Danny's work and character. These principles include uncompromised objectivity and integrity; insightful and unconventional perspective; tolerance and respect for people of all cultures; unshaken belief in the effectiveness of education and communication; and the love of music, humor, and friendship.
Then there is the Open Society Foundation. That's George Soros. The guy that conservatives love to hate. The Open Society Foundations work to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens. To achieve this mission, the Foundations seek to shape public policies that assure greater fairness in political, legal, and economic systems and safeguard fundamental rights. On a local level, the Open Society Foundations implement a range of initiatives to advance justice, education, public health, and independent media. At the same time, build alliances across borders and continents on issues such as corruption and freedom of information. The Foundations place a high priority on pr
>"What is it that creates a progressive mindset?"<
It's really pretty simple. It requires that an open mind is in place. It rejects theories of rationality that can't demonstrate themselves as true. It isn't held in place by rigid dogma. Conservatism is a theory of rationality. So is Libertarianism. Both ideas are followed dogmatically. Dogma restricts the very freedom that conservatives claim to desire.
Dogma is like living as a sheep lives in a fenced corral. It's very safe....at least until the rancher
decides he wants some lamb chops for dinner. Outside the fence of the corral is freedom. But it's also a scary place where anything can happen. So you forsake the freedom for the safety of the corral. Freedom takes a bit more guts I guess. So the sheep justify their existence in the corral as being orderly and safe and the right way to live. They claim that they are the ones that are all about freedom which they loudly proclaim from within the corral surrounded by the fence. It's
the conservative approach. The Libertarian sees himself as supremely individual while ignoring the very fact of his own existance within the society within the corral. They must maintain the existing institution of the corral. They may talk about Freedom, but what they are really concerned with is safety. They are very timid. They may act tough on the outside, but they lack the guts necessary to pursue freedom.
The liberal is probably the "black sheep". He sees freedom beyond the fence. Beyond the dogma of the corral. It could cost him his life. Or it could present a whole new world. But he thinks it beats waiting around to die in a place that never tries anything new. How can he realize his potential from within a prison of dogma? The sheep in the corral call him a misfit, and a lot of
other things. He doesn't believe in the morality of the flock of sheep. He sees them as hypocritical to claim a love for freedom while living inside the fence in a corral. The fence around their very mind. What do they know of freedom? What is the authority that they speak from? What justifies their claim that they are free? Well it's always been this way. It's the tradition. But that doesn't justify remaining inside the corral. The appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy and the black sheep knows that. The black sheep is only interested in the truth, and he'll never get it from within the dogma of the corral. The dogma cannot demonstrate the truth. The truth extends beyond the dogma of the fenced corral. And the Truth will set him free.
As a liberal...I live outside the corral. And I love it. I decide on matters of truth every day. It isn't decided for me through any dogma. I actually have to think for
myself. No prescribed doctrine to follow. It's called freedom. Remember that when you are in a debate and a person makes an absolute statement, that absolutes are the easiest things to take apart. It only takes one exception to render the absolute as false.
>"Savage greediness of course comes from liberals. If anyone or any company is successful, of course it's because of greed and chicanery."<
Ahh..of course. It's the "liberal greed" that is the problem. At a time when we have a $13.7 trillion national debt and the most unfair distribution of income in the industrialized world, why are we giving huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires increasing that debt by $900 Billion? Apparently the size of the deficit isn't really an issue at all with Republicans. It was nothing but a false appeal designed to bring out indignation in the public. After finding out what the tax cuts for the wealthy would cost, they quickly dropped that strategy for another. "Tax Cuts for the Rich are good for the economy and will create jobs". Ok..demonstrate for all of us how that is true. Prove your claim. If that were the case, we wouldn't be in such terrible shape today. It didn't work. Is there no end to their greed? And does anyone really believe that this will only be a two-year agreement with no future extensions? Not with an election coming in 2 years. You can count on this being a campaign issue by Republicans. They will at that time campaign on the idea that the Democrats will want to raise taxes by eliminating the tax cut for the top 2%. If on the other hand the economy begins to improve as it likely will by then, they will point to the tax cuts for the rich as being the cause of the improvement.
Why should we be significantly lowering rates on the estate tax when it applies only to the very, very richest people in this country, the top 0.3 percent? The richest 1 percent already owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Isn't that enough?
With the American people deeply worried about the future of Social Security, why are we diverting $112 billion from the Social Security trust fund in order to provide a 'payroll tax holiday?' And why is a Democratic president adopting this position, which has long been held by Republicans who want to eventually destroy Social Security by choking off its funds? With the Republicans coming to power in the House in a few weeks, why should anyone not think that this 'one-year' diversion will be made long-term or permanent? According to one major senior citizen organization, this action could be the beginning of the end for Social Security – the most successful anti-poverty program in the history of the United States.
Yeah..it must be those greedy liberals after all.
It goes without saying that we must extend unemployment benefits for the millions of working families who, in the midst of this terrible recession, are about to see them expire. But why is this considered a 'concession' when for the last four decades Democrats and Republicans have always worked together and agreed that benefits must be continued when the unemployment rate is higher than 7.2 percent. This is not a 'concession' on the part of the Republicans. This is a continuation of long-held, bipartisan policy.
YOU GUYS ARE GREATE
Tom, Dick, and Harry: A Story of 21st Century Conservatism and Liberalism
Tom is prosperous. He wears good clothing, has just finished a fine meal at a restaurant, and is walking to his car to drive home to his family with $48 of cash in his pocket. Dick is broke. He has struggled all his life, but didn’t get much education, has worked at low-wage jobs, has been sick with the flu for three weeks and unable to work, and is having to sit on a bench outside the restaurant with a sign asking for food. Harry is a cop. He represents Government at any level, in any nation. His beat includes the restaurant, and Tom and Dick are in his field of view.
21st Century Conservatism: Tom sees Dick and feels compassion. He takes a twenty-dollar bill from his pocket and gives it to Dick. He feels good about his deed, and the ability to give. Dick is glad to get the money, because he is hungry. Dick knows that this came from Tom’s charity, and he is glad that there are some generous people around, and that he needs to have his meal and look for a job. Harry the cop watches the whole scene, and is glad that he is able to protect Tom and Dick from other people who might take advantage of Tom’s wealth and Dick’s weakness. Tom gives Harry five dollars for the Policeman’s Fund, because he appreciates what Harry does.
21st Century Liberalism: Tom sees Dick as he walks. Harry the cop approaches Tom and demands $25 from him. He gives twenty dollars to Dick and keeps five dollars to cover the expense of filing his report. Tom resents Harry, and he also now resents Dick. Dick is glad to have the money, because he is hungry, but he feels entitled to it, because Harry gave it to him, not Tom. Harry is so busy transferring money from people like Tom to people like Dick that he is not able to stop the steady increase in crime. Wealth transfer has replaced justice as his priority.
“But,” the liberal objects, “This story is a fabrication. Tom will not give the twenty dollars to Dick without Harry’s pressure.” The conservative replies, “If a majority of people are generous, they will give voluntarily, and the greedy ones that don’t are left with their greed.” “But,” the liberal objects, “What if the generous are not in the majority - then there is not enough, and we must persuade people that Harry’s job is to find greedy people and make them give.”
That belief is the elitism hidden within 21st century liberalism: that a small group must use the power of government - not to secure rights - but to transfer good and services. Liberalism, or “progressivism” in the 21st century is Compulsion disguised as Compassion.
Thanks MKS This is a well put fabrication. It sums up the real thought process of the progressive liberals that we have to face everyday.
I believe it boils down to morality - the Bible defines it - If one doesn't believe the Bible to be true, then one isn't constrained by its moral law. My general assumption is that progressives make up their own definition of morality to suit their ideology. Conservatives I imagine look to more of a biblical standard. Just my two cents.
The Bible says love your neighbor. Jesus helped the poor. The sentiment on this web site have nothing to do with God, Jesus, or Christianity.
Oh, only the comments rondre64 likes get posted here. Makes this page useless.
Seems to me that no one has touched on right and wrong. Some things are right and some things are wrong. You cannot legislate charity. Taking from one to give to another is NOT charity nor is is correct. True charity comes from within, it is a personal decision. IT cannot be legislated. What are we supposed to "progress" to? Are these people seeking a utopia? Have they not studied history nor philosophy? MMMMMMMM, seems not.
James A Watkins Level 8 Commenter 2 years ago
A Mental Disorder! HA! That's funny. I like your little Hub here, bro'. You need to get around and introduce yourself to other Hubbers to get some readership. What you wrote is solid.