hahahahahaha

I think much of the anti-liberal commentary here is accurate of some forms of liberalism, some liberals, and some consequences of liberalism.

A page of equally harsh (and equally over-simplifying) criticism could be directed at conservatives.

Today, both democrat and republican legislators practically work for whoever bankrolls their campaign.

Political liberalism - Definition




Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty as the purpose of government. It typically favors the right to dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters. In this respect, it is sometimes held in contrast to conservatism. Since liberalism also focuses on the ability of individuals to structure a society, it is almost always opposed to totalitarianism, and often to collectivist ideologies, particularly communism.

The word "liberal" derives from the Latin "liber" ("free") and liberals of all stripes tend to view themselves as friends of freedom, particularly freedom from the shackles of tradition. The origins of liberalism in the Enlightenment era contrasted this philosophy to feudalism and mercantilism. Later, as more radical philosophies articulated themselves in the course of the French Revolution and through the nineteenth century, liberalism equally defined itself in contrast to socialism and communism, although some adherents of liberalism sympathize with some of the aims and methods of social democracy.



The very definition of Liberalism is American as apple pie.

So this makes the right wing philosophies .....

A guy is visiting San Francisco, and walks into a small store in Chinatown.

He notices a small bronze statue of a rat.

He asks the owner "how much", and the owner replies "$50 for the bronze rat, and $1000 for the story behind it."
...
The guy says, "forget the story", and buys the rat.

As he's walking down the street he notices two live rats following him. As he continues to walk, more rats start following him.

He starts to get a little concerned, and heads for the waterfront. By the time he gets there there are thousands and thousands of rats following him.

He walks up to the end of the pier and throws the bronze rat into the bay, and the rats all follow and leap off of the pier and drown.

The guy rushes back to the store and walks in. The owner says, "Ah!, so your back for the story".

The guys says, "No, I was wondering if you have any bronze liberals?

Es war einmal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah. Make that 16 lies of liberalism.

Not a lie....just because you don't want or are incapable of seeing the truth of it.

rule of thumb.... if a liberal is talking, they are lying...

And did you know, since I always have to do all the homework for everyone all the time...


Almost all of the guns used in Chicago for wrong doing come from other states....which means their problem is the non restrictive laws in other places.

something you know about, huh...

I sure do, it is like talking to a box of rocks half the time....

The spewing of ad hominem isn't an exercise in telling the truth. Instead, it is a tool of last resort used by someone who can't make a good counter-argument.

By the way, I didn't say that I agree with everything that John Hawkins wrote.

man, don't i know it...

They will learn it though eventually, I just keep trying to help it along....

An unload gun prevents add-on charges such as attempted murder.

On average an Indian farmer kills himself every thirty minutes by drinking Mosanto pesticide on purpose.

My counter argument which it really isn't an argument to speak the truth of the matter but I will allow you that if you think you need it for your own mind to feel better...


There isn't really an argument that holds water on the other side of the truths I speak of. It is a bunch of already dismissed garbage.

Dismissed over and over again....

To a point of complete disbelief in the amount of gun hugging that really goes on...

You have yet to make any real counter-argument to whatever John Hawkins said. Instead, you launched into an ad hominem attack, which you keep perpetuating.

Hawkins makes 15 arguments against liberals, some of which I quote in the OP. If you agree or disagree with them, then explain why.

It is hard to argue with the lies in the list because they are just not true. But to make you feel better I will try to discount them all.

Hold on....let me go get and bring them back here....

What a garbage site to get any kind of valuable info from to start with....

1) ...it's all about choice -- unless you want to choose which gun or lightbulb to use, which school your child will attend, or you’d prefer more freedom and smaller government.

Garbage. The only thing this validates at all is the corporate wish for less regulation so they can poison us faster than they do now.

2) ...it cares about the environment, when in practice, not only do liberals like Al Gore live some of the most resource-wasting and ostentatious lifestyles on the planet, but they hurt the environment by blocking environmentally friendly energy production here in favor of energy sources from nations that care little about pollution.

This is just garbage.

3) ...you can have lots of free government services and somebody else will pay for them. The trillion dollar deficit we're running every year that will have to be paid back says otherwise.

Liberals gladly pay for the services they want through their taxes and their charitable work. So this is just untrue.

4) ...as long as you use birth control that someone else is forced to pay for, there are no consequences whatsoever to having lots and lots of sex. Meanwhile, more than 50 million children have been killed by their own mothers via abortion and 1 out of every 4 adults in New York City has herpes.

More garbage of untruths.....

5) .... "government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn." Do you know anyone with crabgrass on his lawn? DO YOU?

No one says this that I know of on either side....

6) ...it's all about compassion and taking care of the less fortunate, unless liberals have their own money on the line, in which case they give less to charity than those stingy, greedy, heartless conservatives.

This isn't true at all either....

7) ...you shouldn't take your Christian faith seriously, that political correctness matters more than the Bible, and that mocking God has no consequences. Ever heard someone say, “Don't pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel?” Well, if liberals were smarter, they wouldn't be picking a fight with an omnipotent God who buys lightning bolts by the barrel and has a well earned reputation for getting fed up every once in awhile and dishing out "Old Testament style wrath" on His enemies.

That is just stupid. Liberals couldn't care less about others religion as long as it is not a part of the government. Separation of church and state.

8) ...how much our country spends can be dictated by our wants, as opposed to what we can afford. Of course, if the world really works this way, Greece would be fine, nobody would have ever heard of the word "bankruptcy," and the banks wouldn't even bother to write down your name when you borrow money from them.

The government has been run well by Clinton for one but he didn't face an emergency in the country so this is still garbage.....

9) ...liberals want unity and bipartisanship, which they apparently believe they can accomplish by spewing pure hatred and smearing, demonizing, threatening, and lying about anyone who disagrees with them.

Calling a spade a spade is not spewing hatred. Their are lots of bigots and bigoted action done in the name of conservative beliefs against women, gays, non whites, non citizens, etc... So they bring that on themselves, those who do it.

10) ...it’s going to deliver equality of outcomes for everyone, which is true, if by "delivering equality of outcomes" you mean "make everyone poorer."

Untrue....

11) ...it cares about women -- unless they're conservative women, in which case liberals will insult them in the vilest of terms, attack their children, call them whores and laugh and hoot at the most grotesque sexist attacks against them. Every last insult ever hurled at someone like Sandra Fluke probably wouldn't amount to what women like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter put up with on any given week with the full support of the same liberals who run off at the mouth about a "war on women."

Some women just like some men bring this type of action to themselves by what they do to others. I don't agree it is right though but I do understand how it happens. They spew some pretty terrible things themselves to bring it back to themselves.

12) ....it'll help the poor -- and it does. Liberalism helps poor Americans live in ghettos with just enough food and money to survive so they can stay dependent on liberals. It's the same sort of help a farmer gives a chicken while he harvests its eggs and waits for the right time to wring its neck and toss it in the frying pan.

Which the conservative alternative is to let them die. I guess the liberal help is worse than that.

13) ...liberals are the only people who care about black Americans and want to help, which doesn't seem to square with the fact that just about anywhere and everywhere liberals have been in charge for decades, like Detroit or New Orleans, most black Americans are in dire straits.

Racist remarks coming from the conservative side are undisputable. Sorry they brought that to themselves also. And not true

14) ...small business owners were able to build their businesses because they were lucky. But of course, if that's true, why do we have such a high unemployment rate? Why doesn't everyone who loses his job just set up his business and grab that easy money? Since bankers don't deserve the big salaries they make, why doesn't the Occupy movement set up its own bank and show the "banksters" how it's done?

Not one thought but several opinions lumped into one non sensical remark of no value.

15) ...you can fix crime by taking away guns, but by definition, the people who will voluntarily give up guns are law abiding citizens who have no intention of committing a crime in the first place. Besides, if that can work, why doesn't Barack Obama set the example by asking his Secret Service agents to disarm?

Those guns surrounding the president won't protect him either just like they didn't JFK or Reagan, etc... It is an intimidation move that has been used all along but it really never protects these officials now does it?

So it was all untrue and unbased and garbage, just as I said.


I lost a few IQ points reading it....

Perhaps I should set an example by critiquing some of the arguments being made by John Hawkins.



In #1, Hawkins uses a bit of a straw-man argument. There is a case to be made for Congress limiting the sale of certain weapons. For example, Congress has limited the sale of machine guns. Also, liberals have expressed the desire for homosexuals to have "more freedom" to marry whomever they want.

Where Hawkins is correct is the part about which school that your child attends. Liberals have worked to prevent the creation and use of school vouchers, which would enable parents to have better choices of which schools that their children attend. Vouchers would be of great help to parents who are too poor to send their children to private schools.



In #2, Hawkins makes a rather weak argument. Sure, Al Gore acts like a hypocrite when it comes to environmental conservation, but I would not judge all liberals by his actions alone. Hawkins simply doesn't prove his point.



Hawkins needs to specify what he means by "free government services". If he is worried about the federal deficit, then he needs to admit that conservatives in the U.S. government have contributed to the creation of that deficit. Pork spending isn't exclusively a liberal thing.



In #6, Hawkins nails it. In the USA, conservatives as a group give more of their money to private charities than do liberals as a group.

Here is a chart that the Chronicle of Philanthropy published prior to last year's U.S. presidential election:





Like it or not, Hawkins does have a point. Some of the most liberal places in the USA are also places with the most severe fiscal problems, and those fiscal problems are harmful to minorities. For example, the state of Illinois is the state with the worst bond rating. Also, the states with the current highest unemployment rates are Nevada and Rhode Island (tied at 10.2%), and Barack Obama won in both states twice. High unemployment rates are also harmful to minorities.



Again, Hawkins has a point, but he jumps the shark with comment about the U.S. Secret Service. I don't know of any liberals in the USA who advocate taking guns away from law enforcement officers.

So, you see, I did not have to resort to using ad hominem in order to critique the arguments made by John Hawkins.

You mean it was not easier to just call it bullshyte like it is???

Bullshyte takes a lot less typing and fits this crap so well.