Why the 'Liberal' cause will always fail...

amicus

Literotica Guru
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Posts
14,812
Knowing the term, 'Liberal', will be challenged, call it what you will.

They are the artists and poets of any time. They are the painters and scribblers, sculptors and musicians and composers. They choose another vision than the humdrum of toiling for daily bread. They often starve and make disapproved relationships, seeking that solace they so desire. They are best compared to actors and actresses who can memorize and play any role, portraying good or evil. The proliferate the means by which information is shared, radio, television, films, plays, magazines and of course, the world of politics, feeding off the masses with promises.

But when they cast their thoughts and emotions to common men, they do so with disdain and see the masses through their own jaded eyes.

While they proffer visions beyond the common pale, and offer the greatest joy, they also, in their myopic egotistic vision, bring about and to the surface, the deepest darkest fears of all mankind.

Some civilizations have persecuted and banned them from society. Others have tolerated them within the common bond of men, and lived to regret it.

Where they are tolerated they work to bring down the common man; where they are shunned, they work to corrupt from within.

Usually they tiptoe silently through the dark of the night to hidden rendezvous' and plot and plan under the influence. They preach of a 'paler shade of gray', disavowing the right and wrong and good and bad of simple men.

The common man looks on in wonder and wonders why he cannot eliminate them since they wage open assault on his own existence.

Why is it so? What is the missing ingredient in common humanity that allows them to destroy and maim without conscience?

They cannot exist without the permission and sustenance of the common man, yet they belittle his efforts, those guided by principles that do not allow taking an, 'eye for an eye.'

Pimps, prostitutes, heroin addicts, adulterers, thieves and frauds, they walk among the gentle people of this world claiming superiority.

One wonders why we let them?

Or just how much longer we will tolerate them?

This is not intended for the 'true believers, only the 'wannabees' who tag along for a small portion of the goodies offered those in search of an ethical and moral system to guide them.

I wonder how many posts it will take before the word 'fascist' is tossed my way?

Then again, were I the leader of the pack, how would one deal with those who act to undermine social more's? Confine them to an arid desert state? Establish.'re-education facilities'? Gulags, Concentration camps, labor pools? Limit their individual liberties to express themselves? I fear they are like gangrene on an otherwise healthy organism...they need be amputated in some, ahm, humane, manner?

Among the worst of their transgressions is to infect the education of the young, the next generation, through the government mandated indoctrination system misnomered public education.

As the goals and final intentions of the Left are never clarified, it is difficult to categorize the dream like world they see, of totally equality for all people everywhere, regardless of circumstances. They always take quiet advantage of the full half of the population that occupies the lower half of the intelligence quotient, leading the herd in their chosen direction.

There are societies than can 'vote' their way into slavery; America is not one of those.

About five years ago, my youngest daughter was in need of several hundred dollars, I sent it with the stipulation she read, "Atlas Shrugged". During halftime at the super-bowl today, she sent a short email: 'Who is John Galt?" She also thought Springsteen was too ancient for that age group targeted by the advertising.

Maybe there is hope for the lil twit yet.

One would imagine it to be possible for polar opposites to coexist...but history shows they do not, thus the periodical conflicts that all decry.

Such a deal?

Wrote this little ditty just before the big game:

There are no colors

on this cold winter day

only sad shades of gray.


Amicus
 
Pimps, prostitutes, heroin addicts, adulterers, thieves and frauds, they walk among the gentle people of this world claiming superiority.
Just like you're claiming superiority over them.

Such a deal.
 
Knowing the term, 'Liberal', will be challenged, call it what you will.

They are the artists and poets of any time. They are the painters and scribblers, sculptors and musicians and composers. They choose another vision than the humdrum of toiling for daily bread. They often starve and make disapproved relationships, seeking that solace they so desire. They are best compared to actors and actresses who can memorize and play any role, portraying good or evil. The proliferate the means by which information is shared, radio, television, films, plays, magazines and of course, the world of politics, feeding off the masses with promises.

But when they cast their thoughts and emotions to common men, they do so with disdain and see the masses through their own jaded eyes.

While they proffer visions beyond the common pale, and offer the greatest joy, they also, in their myopic egotistic vision, bring about and to the surface, the deepest darkest fears of all mankind.

Some civilizations have persecuted and banned them from society. Others have tolerated them within the common bond of men, and lived to regret it.

Where they are tolerated they work to bring down the common man; where they are shunned, they work to corrupt from within.

Usually they tiptoe silently through the dark of the night to hidden rendezvous' and plot and plan under the influence. They preach of a 'paler shade of gray', disavowing the right and wrong and good and bad of simple men.

The common man looks on in wonder and wonders why he cannot eliminate them since they wage open assault on his own existence.

Why is it so? What is the missing ingredient in common humanity that allows them to destroy and maim without conscience?

They cannot exist without the permission and sustenance of the common man, yet they belittle his efforts, those guided by principles that do not allow taking an, 'eye for an eye.'

Pimps, prostitutes, heroin addicts, adulterers, thieves and frauds, they walk among the gentle people of this world claiming superiority.

One wonders why we let them?

Or just how much longer we will tolerate them?

This is not intended for the 'true believers, only the 'wannabees' who tag along for a small portion of the goodies offered those in search of an ethical and moral system to guide them.


One would imagine it to be possible for polar opposites to coexist...but history shows they do not, thus the periodical conflicts that all decry.

Amicus

Sterotype, much?

Ami, I do have to say that you wear your self-appointed "lone voice crying in the wilderness" role well.

Good luck with that.
 
AMICUS

Usually new regimes shoot every liberal they can capture.

GNOME

You assume stereotypes are bad. In reality stereotypes are like look-up tables that eliminate a lot of the math. I mean, when youre out in the jungle and hear something large crashing thru the banana trees, headed your way, you do not take out pad & pencil to compute Baye's Probabilty Theorum for Good & Evil.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Liberal is derived from liberty. This country was founded on liberal principles by liberal people with liberal beliefs. Liberalism is the exact intention of the founding fathers and neo-conservatism is the perversion of their ideal. The whole liberal bashing thing since the rise of Reaganism is un-American. Neo-conservative pundits, the loudest voices for neo-conservatism, rail against actual freedom and invoke the self-righteous wrath of the malcontents who think they follow true conservatism. Many of whom are not smart enough to realize they are extolling the virtues of facism rather than democracy and would be appalled if only they knew better. In the hands of the neo-con neither term, liberal or conservative, actually mean what they are supposed to mean.

That is generally why I don't ever get involved in the liberal/neo-con threads. The argument is moot when the terms are so skewed. And I'm a moderate anyway.
 
AMICUS

Usually new regimes shoot every liberal they can capture.

GNOME

You assume stereotypes are bad. In reality stereotypes are like look-up tables that eliminate a lot of the math. I mean, when youre out in the jungle and hear something large crashing thru the banana trees, headed your way, you do not take out pad & pencil to compute Baye's Probabilty Theorum for Good & Evil.

Umm... James? Have you been asleep for the last 50 years? Just wondering, 'cause it sounds like you missed the entire last half-century.
 
I wonder how many posts it will take before the word 'fascist' is tossed my way?

Then again, were I the leader of the pack, how would one deal with those who act to undermine social more's? Confine them to an arid desert state? Establish.'re-education facilities'? Gulags, Concentration camps, labor pools? Limit their individual liberties to express themselves? I fear they are like gangrene on an otherwise healthy organism...they need be amputated in some, ahm, humane, manner?

Amicus
Nuff said.
 
BOOTA

Your understanding of American history and our Constitution are very different from my own.

Until 1865 or so, the American Constitution only applied to the Federal Government, and its only been since about 1960 that we have the liberties you enumerate.

The GOP passed the 14th Amendment after it locked out of the Capitol everyone who opposed it. The majority party can do this whenever it wishes, that is, the leaders of the House & Senate order the Sergeant at Arms to turn off the vote buttons of the opposition. So we got Equal Protection by disfranchising the Congressional votes of several states who opposed it.
 
amicus, libertarian or...

ami Limit their individual liberties to express themselves? I fear they are like gangrene on an otherwise healthy organism...they need be amputated in some, ahm, humane, manner?

the severest of measures are clearly called for. this "libertarian" believes his opponents are gangrene, necessitating amputation.

this "libertarian" believes *suspects* of 'terror' crimes should be arbitrarily detained, without recourse, and tortured for information.

this "constitutionalist" person believes large portions of the constitution are unwise, if not invalid. e.g. all amendments after the first dozen, including women voting.

this constitutionalist believes in virtually unlimited powers of the executive, assertable against courts and elected legislatures.

the correct labels for these views are rather obvious.
 
liberals always fail?

GWB put into place governement insurance and support for prescription drugs.

GWB used federal money to 'bail out' private firms and banks.

Liberal and socialist measures are now routine for Rep'ns.

Reagan, the "conservative," brought Defense spending to record highs and made the 'defense industry', aircraft builders, for example even more dependent on gov't largesse. the graph at http://thenumbersguru.blogspot.com/2008/10/defense-spending-as-percent-of-gdp-1940.html shows that defense spending as % of GDP increased from about 5% to about 7% under Reagan.

GWB sold bonds to the Chinese--i.e. borrowed from them-- to finance his war. The program of low taxes and high rate of borrowing is a statist measure, since the borrowed government funds support sections of the economy.

liberalism has won the war, and most of the talk against 'government' or 'big government' is hypocritical pandering to the know-nothing vote; who of course want to be assured of their social security, gov't sponsored medical care in retirement and so on.

there are in fact FEW Rep'ns dedicated to reducing the size of the government.

No Republican or other office holder agrees with the so called minimal government espoused by mr. amicus.

the last Rand-ist in high office was the appointed mr. greenspan; he's now at least discomfited, if not disgraced by the effects of his deregulation policies; says he didn't see the problems up the road, the global downturn.
 
Last edited:
the last Rand-ist in high office was the appointed mr. greenspan; he's now at least discomfited, if not disgraced by the effects of his deregulation policies; says he didn't see the problems up the road, the global downturn.

I was humbled for him, when he spoke. It was quite a moment.
 
Hmmm...this thread was somewhat of a follow-up for one several months ago concerning, 'intellectuals' in general and why a majority of them tend to be communal in social affairs. It was from an essay by Ludwig Von Mises, and credit was given at the time.

That is not to say that all intellectuals or all Liberals, those with a Classical Liberal foundation, insert a pejorative sense into 'smart people',

There are many intellectuals who are not 'Bohemian', counter culture activists. They are the ones who design and build the bridges, sky scrapers, basically the entire infrastructure of society. There are true artists who are not stoned, homosexual and anti business, as there are musicians and other entertainers.

Society, occasionally, not always, benefits from the contemporary left wing activists who work to stretch the envelope of thinking or, 'think outside the box', a term used for just about everything.

There are, perhaps, and I felt the need to qualify that, some good by activist organizations such as PETA and the ACLU and the global warming freaks who are but a spin-off from the sixties and seventies environmental activists.

But much of what those and other groups attempt to achieve is not beneficial to society or man in general, rather, a hindrance and possibly dangerous in terms of blatant ignorance concerning energy production and distribution.

Although the emancipation of women and minorities was discussed and debated at the time the Constitution was written, it, 'perhaps' took the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movement to bring those enfranchisements into being. Then again, if you follow, the success of both women's rights and civil rights for minorities may have been too much, too soon.

Cloudy knows damned well that a large percentage of society considers abortion to be the taking of an innocent human life, yet this forum, largely, sees no moral conflict in supporting abortion on demand. Thus it is not a large stretch of verbiage to call it 'killing babies', for that, in fact, is just what it is.

So, come down off your high horse folks and admit, there is an opposing position on every left wing edict you consider to be sacrosant.

I might also remind some of the 'usual suspects', that there are lines of thought outside political parties and accepted moral or philosophical imperatives. It is not a gawd-awful sin to differ with the majority, but, I thought you already knew that.

Amicus...
 
Amicus, liberalism as a "product" fails for a very fundamental reason. They are selling the most undesirable and destructive product ever invented. The message is too depressing. No one wants to buy it. So the salesmen, like all good hucksters, lie about it to trick people into thinking it's wonderful. They exploit people's envy, greed, hate, anger, lust for power, and above all their ignorance.

Imagine writing a self-help book where the message was that you were born to fail, and the only thing that can be done is to bring others down with you. Who would buy it? That's what liberalism is. It's opium for losers.

That's why true conservatism sells - it's about winning and showing everyone else how. Everyone wants to win, not be told they can't.
 
For those who don't know, I had the fortune to be a talk radio host for over ten years, in two major metropolitan markets.

My method was to digest as much hard news as possible and then form opinions and express them over the air.

Listening to the Fox Opinion channel late this afternoon and evening, I swear, someone is either reading my mind or passing on to the media, commentary I have offered here.

But if it is a simple thing as, 'great minds think like thoughts...' (grins), then why the hell so much derogatory foreplay on this dip-assed forum? Yell at Hannity, Gingrich and Coulter for a while!

Never mind O'Reilly, he wouldn't make a pimple on a real talk show hosts ass.

Amicus the Magnificent!;)

:rose:
 
off2bed
Nobody's Alt

Memory fails me concerning your avatar, sidekick was Emma Peel, forgot the dude's name, "The Prisoner?" was that the show?

Not sure we have talked before, thank you for the response and I pretty much agree with you.

I often say that contemporary liberalism is just refashioned, old fashion religion, promising everything and giving nothing, but make sure you tithe and double tithe just to make sure you go to heaven.

The one reward for liberals, as I see it, after a lifetime of promiscuous behavior, is a continual diet of anxiety meds and an early grave with no one in attendance because they are all sterile.

On the Opium thing....when I take over the world, I intend to forbid government from banning, restricting or taxing any substance, except perhaps Plutonium. What might your opinion be on the total freedom of the individual to choose his own poison?

Amicus...
 
"Number 6" I am not a number, I am a free man.

I'm not in favor of legalizing psychoactive drugs.
 
Amicus, those damned liberals:

Are fucking everything up! You and me dude, let's load the Colt 45's, saddle the T-Rex's and wreak havoc on those low-life bastards!
We can do it! We can wipe 'em out! Scare 'em back into the intellectual hinterlands that they belong to!!!
Make them inhabit the back-alleys of civilization where you and yours think they belong. Sorry, there isn't any you and yours. THERE IS ONLY YOU. And you, my friend have a unique and misguided perspective of this american experience.
This great notion wasn't founded by conservatives or even neotards like yourself. It was founded by liberals:
Miscreants and ne'er-do-wells cast out by thier native land and families to take root or die thousands of miles from the home fires. If they survived, ok. If they flourished, better. If they padded the family fortune - praise his holy name!
I've got a saddle and a six gun with your name on it if you change your mind.
Carl Rove has a bridle for you.......
 
Okay...got it.

Most here are not in favor of permitting the individual to freely choose what he ingests.

My fundamental difference lies somewhere within the concept of psychological maturity. It is my opinion that an individual will never fully mature if the State dictates what he may and may not do.

Further, that if the individual goes ahead and partakes of the halucogens anyway, then there is tremendous guilt and subterfuge, neither of which is conducive to sanity, or a healthy psychological perspective on life. Look at all these proud druggies here, ashamed and afraid to really admit it.

Amicus...
 
Dragonbreath
..."...Miscreants and ne'er-do-wells cast out by thier native land and families to take root or die thousands of miles from the home fires. If they survived, ok. If they flourished, better..."

~~~

Actually Jamestown and other settlements were commercial ventures. If anything, the early colonists were rugged individualist capitalists. The ones that survived, created the greatest nation in the history of the world.

You should maybe clean up your act a little, it reads very juvenile.

Amicus...
 
Okay...got it.

Most here are not in favor of permitting the individual to freely choose what he ingests.

My fundamental difference lies somewhere within the concept of psychological maturity. It is my opinion that an individual will never fully mature if the State dictates what he may and may not do.

Further, that if the individual goes ahead and partakes of the halucogens anyway, then there is tremendous guilt and subterfuge, neither of which is conducive to sanity, or a healthy psychological perspective on life. Look at all these proud druggies here, ashamed and afraid to really admit it.

Amicus...

"Sound and fury, signifying nothing."
 
Back
Top