The Problem With Liberal Minds

The problem with Liberalism is not just the philosophy but is also the mind that absorbs and believes the things that are contrary to common sense. Liberals have a mind that forces them to use emotion to think everything through rather than logic. Now many Liberals will tell you that they are using logic or that your logic is flawed but in reality they are looking at things based on their emotions. How will someone feel if I say/do/practice this? How will I feel? It is my right because it makes me feel good and you a (fill in the blank) if you can not see these things.

I have been called many names by Liberals here on the blogosphere. There is one person who goes by PoetryMan. He writes poetry (obviously) and it often expresses his distaste for anything “NeoCon.” He has called me a bigot, a clown, and a number of other things in his attempt too argue points about everything going on in the world. Whenever a point is made I am attacked (rather than the argument) and the conspiracy theories and lies that the Democratic Party puts out in its talking points memos are used as a “weapon” in the war against NeoCons.

Now I point this guy out to show the fundamental flaw in Liberalism. It is a do as I say, not as I do philosophy that only has tolerance for those who espouse the same ideas. Much like Islam, which is only a religion of peace for those who belong, Liberalism is only tolerant of the people who agree with it. This mindset allows people to call a war immoral without explaining why it is immoral or without listening to the arguments for the morality of the issue. Liberals can tell you that life means nothing and you should be able to abort millions of babies and use their stem cells for research but in the same breath tell us life is precious so you should not execute a convicted murderer.

The emotional mind of Liberals allows them to use the word “racist” every time something happens. The race card is designed to evoke emotion. Don’t get me wrong, people should be angry (an emotion) when they witness or are a victim of racism. But using the word when racism is not present such as when Cynthia “Cop Socker” McKinney hit a police officer is nothing more than a tactic to elicit emotions (and make her the victim). The same holds true for the idea that tax cuts are for the rich. The logic shows us that tax cuts increase revenue to the government and creates a greater economy but the Liberal emotion tells people that tax cuts only help the rich (which is not true, but the rich pay most of the taxes anyway) and this benefit to the rich comes at the expense of the poor. Another example of emotion being used to influence people rather than using logic and fact to persuade them.

How about the emotion of war and the military? The Liberal mind tells us that all of mankind can live in peace if we all hold hands and sing Bob Dylan songs. No one would want to hurt us or anyone else if we all just drank lattes and discussed the issues. We need to have an emotional discussion with these folks so we can understand how they feel (what is their emotional state?) and what we did to upset them so we can make it better. To Liberals, no one would ever be angry or fight if we followed their philosophy of emotion. The first act of violence in recorded history was when Cain killed his brother Abel. The unfortunate thing is, Cain murdered because he was angry with his brother. Yes, his emotion caused the violence. Therefore we can conclude that holding hands and understanding another’s emotional state will not necessarily keep people from being violent.

In fact, it is often a favorite Liberal tact to say that people do bad things like go to war because they hurt the feelings of the bad guy. The America bashers on the left are full of stories about how we made the terrorists hate us, how war is not the answer and how we got ourselves into a mess because we did not take into account how others felt. Now Conservatives are not immune to emotion. When 9/11 hit the visceral reaction was to seek revenge. Quite emotional, however after time to think a plan was conceived and executed to go into Afghanistan and take out the Taliban. We also went into Iraq and took out a regime that supported terrorists. The facts given for the war were solid. The left will point out that there were no WMD (they were there) and that we were lied to (an emotional response) while ignoring the fact that WMD was only one of several reasons given for the invasion and that we gave Hussein plenty of time and opportunity to capitulate.

Liberal politicians are great for using emotion to get elected. They can never get past saying “we have a plan.” If they could come out and actually tell the plan and why it will work along with the method of execution then it might make sense. Instead, they show pictures of military coffins and say that the other side does things wrong and they will do it better. They discuss how many of our military have been killed (while ignoring that more of them died when Clinton was in office) because this is all designed to play on the emotions of the flawed Liberal mind. The Liberals will also play on emotions by touting the number of dead civilians. It is terrible when people die but everyone dies. Life is a sexually transmitted terminal condition and no one gets out of it alive. The Liberals will discuss how terrible it is that a bomb accidentally kills 10 civilians but then excuse a homicide bomber who kills 40 children and their mothers as “Freedom Fighters.” The emotional plea to understand the mind of someone who is upset at ourevil.

Liberalism is the emotional mindset that allows them to tell us how everything they do (like tax increases) is for the children. For the children is an emotional plea because we all want to help kids. They tell us they care about the children while defending the murder of millions of them while they are still in the womb. The Liberal mind is what allows a man like Ted Kennedy to drown a woman and then come out wearing a neck brace (for sympathy, an emotion) to make it look like he cares. Logic would dictate that he should pay for the crime but he played on the emotional Liberal mind in order to keep his power.

The Liberal mind is an uncomplicated pile of emotional goo that uses causes and feel good things to promote the destruction of this country. We need to get rid of Liberals and keep them out of office so that our country can function logically, not on an emotional whim.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

9 Responses to “The Problem With Liberal Minds”

  1. thepoetryman says:

    The Liberal mind is an uncomplicated pile of emotional goo that uses causes and feel good things to promote the destruction of this country. We need to get rid of Liberals and keep them out of office so that our country can function logically, not on an emotional whim.

    Oh my… Even your blog is awash with hubris. I was silly to think that it was just simple bravado.

    Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future.
    — Adolf Hitler

  2. Big Dog says:

    Hubris would indicate exaggerated pride or confidence, there is nothing exaggerated here.

    The quote from Hitler describes the Democratic party and their media wing especially those at The New York Times (or Al Qaeda Intelligence Agency).

    The good thing is we won’t let it happen.

    You are half correct, you are silly.

  3. thepoetryman says:

    Dog,

    “Hubris would indicate exaggerated pride or confidence, there is nothing exaggerated here.”

    You will even change the definition of hubris to fit your agenda!

    HUBRIS- excessive pride or arrogance…

    Not exaggerated, which would indicate “making something appear more noticeable or prominent than is usual or desirable”…

    Methinks you’ve not much choice in the matter of the hubris…yours is deeply etched. I mean take a real close perusal of your blog, Dog… It reeks of hubris, not confidence.

    “The quote from Hitler describes the Democratic party and their media wing especially those at The New York Times (or Al Qaeda Intelligence Agency).”

    Okay, class… get out your Psych 101 manual! It’s time for a little lesson in Subtle Manipulative Behavior! What, Dog, attempted to do class was to confuse us with spin. With catch phrases and hot-points and by half truths and well… lies! Fun, sure, but not worth squat in the think tank!

    The true intent of the quote, as thepoetryman intended (and we can assume Hitler did as well), was to show that the wars of the future are here, now…The reason will be discussed at length in World History!

    Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future.

    The good thing is we won’t let it happen. Boy I sure hope that you (we) wouldn’t!

    Let what happen? The Democratic party? The “media wing”? (Whatever the hell that is…)

    What, Dog? You (we) won’t let what happen?

    You are half correct, you are silly.

    No. Your blog is silly, bordering on purposeless, save for your need to write the diary of your hubris…

  4. Big Dog says:

    I did not write the dictionary but Webster did. Here is what Webster says:
    Main Entry: hu·bris
    Pronunciation: ‘hyü-br&s
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Greek hybris
    : exaggerated pride or self-confidence

    My blog is purposeless so do us all a favor and hang around somewhere else. Maybe I can spruce it up with a bunch of meanigless poetry and videos that exaggerate meaningless points.

    It is interesting that you know what Hitler was thinking. Try and guess what I am thinking now…

    As for confidence, I am confident that you will never change my opinion and I will not change yours. I am also confident that I will not pay much attention to what you have to say. So screetch on. The high pitched noise you make might attract attention in other places, but not here.

    I will be in Arkansas in the near future. Interested in meeting for a cup of coffee?

  5. thepoetryman says:

    Exaggerated it is… I was looking in the Greek dictionary… Hubris or hybris (Greek ‛′Υβρις)… In Ancient Greek, hubris referred to an excessive and reckless disregard for the rights of another person resulting in social degradation for the victim.

    In its modern usage, hubris denotes excessive pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of knowledge, interest in, and exploration of history, combined with a lack of humility.

    – I’m sorry I accused you of changing the definition, Dog. You are, after all, a very modern man!

    Cup of coffee? And exactly what would be accomplished by such an act? A bond formed that doesn’t exist across the ether? Do you think we might chat it up about baseball? The latest blockbuster? Our individual disgust with screeching blowhards?

    All one really need to do, Dog, is peruse your site and then peruse mine. They would, if not instantly, soon see that although I said your blog is purposeless, it does serve a purpose; you.

    1. You have a dog pissing on a superior. A highly decorated officer…and that is testament enough of your honorable service to this, our country. (Isn’t the aforementioned against some unwritten military code?)

    2. You state at the top: “LET THAT BE A LESSON TO YOU, BOYS AND GIRLS. DON’T EVER ARGUE WITH THE BIG DOG BECAUSE THE BIG DOG IS ALWAYS RIGHT”

    Hubris… Not exaggerated. Deep-rooted.

    3. There are jingoistic banners and ads and all over your front page serving no purpose really, but to stroke your hubris.

    4. Instead of diplomacy and evenhandedness, there is only inflammatory symbols and catch phrases and all the expected hot buttons found on tens of thousands of other “conservative” blogs… (I guess the military was short on the individualistic training, eh?)

    Your blog’s the same as so many out there, both left and right, Dog, which is why it is purposeless. You do not want to change the atmosphere you want to enflame it!

    **My blog is mostly a plea for peace. Yours is a plea for aggression. War.

    **My blog doesn’t rely on jingoistic fervor or cheap advertisements of some perceived enemy, or call Republicans names, nor does it employ a pissing dog to make its point.

    Don’t you get it, yet? While you were reading SUN TZU’s “The Art of War”, I was reading Kahlil Gibran’s “The Prophet”… You were watching Top Gun or any number of John Wayne movies and I was watching “Battle’s Poison Cloud (On the war in Vietnam)” or “Winter Soldier”, 1972. (Vietnam veterans speak about atrocities committed upon Vietnamese soldiers and civilians during their time in the U.S. armed forces in Vietnam. Through testimony given at the Winter Soldier Investigation held by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1971, press conferences, and interviews with individual participants, the film graphically portrays the effect of U.S. government policy and practice, which turned soldiers into animals bent on destruction and Vietnamese into “gooks”–non-human “targets” for murder, rape, and mutilation. The veterans struggle to come to terms with the devastation they caused so that others will not make the same mistake again.)

    Do you see, Dog?

    While Bush was speaking of peace he was planning a war. While you and I are battling on the ether’s front-lines one of us has to be dead wrong

    I will err on the side of peace.

    No. Not the kind of peace that would roll over while a true enemy approached, but one that strives for peace in the now. Immediately. (After the contemporary, never ending, domino-effect of warring has begun.

    Do you not see, now?

    Coffee isn’t an option, my friend… I’m too busy trying to make a push for real peace against a mighty war machine, and you’re just adding to the weight.

    Don’t mistake me for a man that will not stand on the side of our military troops 100% in their capacity as citizens and be grateful for their service.

    Don’t mistake me for a man who will hesitate not one nth of an iota at protesting against an overreaching government and will not pause at using all means at my disposal to assure that we continue enjoying our freedoms.

    You may not like poetry, or my site in general, but, as much as I think Bush is an incompetent president, you will not find a crude animation of a dog pissing on his head. It’s tasteless and sophmoric…

    Peace.

  6. Big Dog says:

    We should address a few of these things.

    As for the coffee, it was an invitation to meet face to face and talk like human beings about differences. If you would rather not then that is your choice.

    No, it is not against military law for me to display the picture any more than it is foe Wesley Clark to make disparaging remarks about the President. I am retired and not subject to the same laws as active duty troops. But, the Winter Soldier, that was where they discussed assassanating a few US Senators. That was, of course against the law. As for the crimes they talked about, who discussed them? Was it the SGT who never actually went to Vietnam? How do their stories compare to the stories of men who witnessed no such accounts? Were these isolated incidents or were they widespread. It is safe to say that since neither of us were there we really do not know.

    I never thought that you would not stand by the troops if need be, I just beleive that you have a different view of the realities of the world than I do. Nothing wrong with that, it is why we are a free country.

    I like poetry but it is not something I read all the time. I write some of it myself and have had it published. That does not mean that it is what i want to put on the Internet, you on the other hand do.

    Our government has been overreaching for a very long time through administrations from both parties. We need a Congreeional Survivor program combined with the American Idol Concept where representatives have to go on national TV and their records are shown. Then, they explain what they stand for. America could then vote for the most appropriate candidate.(he says tongue in cheeck)

    I love peace, it is a great thing. It would appear that some of the people who attacked us do not. We were attacked and we responded. People might not like it but we are where we are and we need to finish. Until peace is obtained I am firmly behind the troops and our President and will be that way until our troops are safely home.

  7. thepoetryman says:

    Our government has been overreaching for a very long time through administrations from both parties. (NO DOUBT THERE!)

    We need a Congressional Survivor program combined with the American Idol Concept where representatives have to go on national TV and their records are shown. Then, they explain what they stand for. America could then vote for the most appropriate candidate. (GREAT IDEA, BY THE WAY! Problem is no participants… sad.)

    I love peace, it is a great thing. It would appear that some of the people who attacked us do not. (Some of the people? I still consider what happened ~9/11~ to be the product of our miserable foreign policy and our presence on Arab soil in the form of permanent bases and our interference in many affairs we need not. AND some very irrational men (Saudi born) we call “terrorists”…)

    We were attacked and we responded. (EMOTIONAL!- Afghanistan was one thing, somewhat questionable our rationale and the fact that it is now the same as it ever was, but Iraq is PNAC and their Kristol cohorts plan unfolding with deadly results, less safe than we ever were!)

    People might not like it but we are where we are and we need to finish. (EMOTIONAL! Finish? Finish what, Dog? Is that a plan? Ludicrous.)

    Until peace is obtained I am firmly behind the troops and our President and will be that way until our troops are safely home. (EMOTIONAL! Is that a plan? Why the president? You can drop your allegiances only so much, eh? Stand behind a president that is incompetent in so many respects? The troops I understand your support of them, but Bush… why not put the truth under your dog…?)

    “As for the coffee, it was an invitation to meet face to face and talk like human beings about differences. If you would rather not then that is your choice.” (Talk like human beings? I am talking like a human being… you just don’t hear me… Yes. I’d rather not.)

    “I never thought that you would not stand by the troops if need be, I just believe that you have a different view of the realities of the world than I do.” (Half truth if I ever read one!) Nothing wrong with that, it is why we are a free country.” (EMOTIVE Bullshit! What about this-> The Liberal mind is an uncomplicated pile of emotional goo that uses causes and feel good things to promote the destruction of this country. We need to get rid of Liberals and keep them out of office so that our country can function logically, not on an emotional whim. (Very Hitleresque phraseology, Dog! When your comments do not match the rhetoric of your blog you become a liar. See? I don’t think you’re a liar, I just think your dishonest.)

    The first act of violence in recorded history was when Cain killed his brother Abel. The unfortunate thing is, Cain murdered because he was angry with his brother. Yes, his emotion caused the violence. Therefore we can conclude that holding hands and understanding another’s emotional state will not necessarily keep people from being violent. (We can also, given the evidence, conclude that killing an individual (even a brother) out of anger and killing strangers in war are so vastly different realms that it makes your point purposeless…pointless!

    Stop scanning what I write and read it instead! I said `against some unwritten military code’… You wrote, “No, it is not against military law” and, of course, I never said it was… I know you may think that is nitpicking, but language when speaking of such grave matters, war, code and honor, is an important tool that must be held up in the bright light of truth above all else. It is a great difference of meaning… my “unwritten code” and your “military law”

    Peace…

  8. Big Dog says:

    I differ with you on what constitutes emotion and what constitutes rational response. I also believe that even if we were attacked for the reasons you give it does not make them valid.

    The phrase about liberal minds is those in general, my statement was about you as an individual.

    And finally, yes words are important. I wrote Cain MURDERED Abel, you equated it to killing. Murder is a crime and killing is not. This is a legal issue and it is also why the commandment reads (from the original) thou shalt not murder.

    God inspired armies to kill.

    I thought it read “written”, my mistake. And again, no

  9. thepoetryman says:

    Yes. And George had God direct him into Iraq…yada yada yada…

    Thou shalt not kill (murder…you’re splitting hairs. rered what I said and you will find that I wrote (We can also, given the evidence, conclude that killing an individual (even a brother) out of anger and killing strangers in war are so vastly different realms that it makes your point purposeless…pointless! If killing someone purposefully with anger in your heart is not murder then you should write your own book. :>)

    The second you dress it up as collateral damage you’re a saint! Oy vay…