 sj |
||
|
||
BS: My take on Liberals
|
|
|
Subject: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 20 Jan 07 - 11:19 AM I was considering writing my own essay defining my impression liberals but in the process of researching I found this one written by Rob F. It sums up my thinking and actually goes beyond what I was thinking. Three Kinds of LiberalsNothing bothers liberals more than the truth. In my experience, the simplest explanation is almost always the truest. The way I see it, there are three kinds of liberals, the sincere liberals, the insincere liberals, and the ignorant liberals. The Sincere Liberals It's become the rage on conservative blogs to post pictures of liberal donks preening, masquerading, protesting, and generally making absolute imbeciles out of themselves. However wrong these individuals are, they are sincere in their wrongness. They honestly believe in their backward agendas and socialist policies. They march to the beat of an angry anti-American drum and they're not shy about screeching their dissent. They are pro-abortion fem-Nazis, socialists, communists, hippies, Hollywood elites, and environmentalists. A good example of this kind of liberal is Janeane Garofalo. She absolutely believes every foul, craven, absurd word that comes out of her liberal mouth. The Insincere Liberals In my opinion, these are the most dangerous of the three types of liberals. The insincere liberal uses liberal policies as a device to protest or counter conservative politics. Liberal policies are entrenched in Stalinist principles and encourage class envy. Insincere liberals use class envy to pit one group against another and therefore find support amongst the poor, uneducated, outcast, and vulnerable of society. The Democratic Party is fraught with insincere liberals. They know that their policies are outdated, unrealistic, and hopeless. They are fully aware that, in the end, their liberal policies will harm those they promise to protect. Only one thing motivates an insincere liberal, absolute power. Most civil rights leaders are also insincere liberals. They continue to find racism and bigotry where it does not exist simply to maintain their own relevance. The list of insincere liberals is endless. Harry Reid, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Jesse Jackson are obstructionist insincere liberals of the most shameless and deceitful nature. They are liars, bent on raising issues, obstructing justice, and inciting conflict to gain political leverage. The Ignorant Liberals This group, while not the loudest or scariest, is by far the most numerous and most damaging of the three. Ignorant liberals are everyday people who gallivant through life enjoying the freedoms made possible by the sacrifices of thousands of brave American Soldiers. If you ask them about their position on a specific issue, they will often answer but will have very little in terms of an actual explanation of their conclusion. The ignorant liberal is a tool for the insincere liberal. They are spoon fed their news and they think with their heart. When forced to have an opinion, they are easily swayed by typical liberal tactics that play on humanity's emotions, fears, wants, and sympathies. They are complacent and willing to let others make decisions for them. With all of the modern creature comforts that we enjoy in the United States, ignorant liberals are apathetic and pay little attention to issues that decide the future of their freedoms and lifestyles. The ignorant liberal is fodder for the insincere liberal and the sincere liberal. They are vast tides of humanity sloshing within the republic and threatening to allow the insincere liberals to drown our freedoms forever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 20 Jan 07 - 11:23 AM The first sentence says it all - "Nothing bothers liberals more than the truth." Naturally! The truth is what conservatives try to hide. The truth shows the problems that need to be fixed, something that liberals wish to tackle and conservatives would rather put their head in the sand to avoid. Conservatives choose to write sophmoric essays and play spin doctor to hide from the truth. The conservatives days are numbered and it scares the hell out of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Jan 07 - 11:25 AM Fascinating! Want to hear my take on chimpanzees? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,Crazyhorse Date: 20 Jan 07 - 11:31 AM I suggest you do a little more study on what a liberal is; maybe JS Mill would be a reasonable starting place though there are many others. You also have to bear in mind that the term is understood differently on each side of the pond. Crazyhorse european liberal (who happens to be pro US) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Jan 07 - 11:33 AM But anyway, Dickey, can we next get your take on... Women? Movies? Buddhists? High quality footwear? I mean, hey, it could be quite entertaining, you know... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: kendall Date: 20 Jan 07 - 11:40 AM Don't feed the Trolls. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 20 Jan 07 - 11:45 AM By now most of you are yelling "Conservative jerk!" as if you know all about me. Well how do you know I am a conservative? Is it just a Liberal kneejerk reaction to criticisim of Libs? Is it an immediate attack on anything, reasonable or not, in order to preserve Liberal causes and condemn Consertive causes? Notice I have not put forward any causes and I have not condemned any Liberal causes. I would like to add four things to that which was written by Rob F. A. Even the sincere Liberals will repeat things that they do not believe, do not know to be true or even know to be untrue just to add more weight to their cause. Make a bigger noise so to speak in order to promote the things they do believe. B. Liberals do not question their own beliefs. They shut out anything that threatens to disprove them. Facts are especialy dangerous to them and they have to either ingnore them or say they are not true. They never question themselves or their beliefs. C. I say only things that I beleive in, things I believe to be true and things I know to be true. I never say things that I do not believe, believe to be true or know to be true. Yes, I believe all of the above is true. D. Even when I do believe things I am constantly checking my facts and beliefs and I am ready to change them in a heartbeat if I find out I am wrong. A constant self evaluation. I will listen to even the most far out rhetoric and try to determine if there is any truth in it as a constant self evaluation process. Does C or D define me as a conservative? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Jan 07 - 11:53 AM Hey, man, I am NOT a liberal. So I don't much care what you fantasize about regarding them. I have no idea what you are...other than someone with a strong opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: TIA Date: 20 Jan 07 - 11:55 AM Nope, it defines you as a liberal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,meself Date: 20 Jan 07 - 11:55 AM One thing I've been wondering for a long time - why do we so seldom hear intelligent conservative commentary? I certainly class myself as a liberal, but I do appreciate thoughtful conservative critique. I have known many intelligent conservatives - why is it that so much of the public conservative rhetoric is of the abysmal quality of that which we see on this thread? Come on, intelligent conservatives, speak up! (I should confess that I'm a Canadian, and I suppose what we call a hard-line, far-right conservative is what is called a whining, liberal pansy in the States ... ). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Joe Offer Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:14 AM Gee, you could put the shoe on the other foot:
It's become the rage on liberal blogs to post pictures of neoconservative donks preening, masquerading, protesting, and generally making absolute imbeciles out of themselves. However wrong these individuals are, they are sincere in their wrongness. They honestly believe in their backward agendas and capitalist policies. They march to the beat of an angry pro-American drum (as if their opponents weren't Americans) and they're not shy about screeching their dissent. They are anti-abortion neo-Nazis, fascists, imperialists, "suits," rednecks, and me-firsters. A good example of this kind of neoconservative is Anne Coulter. She absolutely believes every foul, craven, absurd word that comes out of her neoconservative mouth. I think this definition fits every bit as well as the so-called "definition" of sincere liberal. Basically, it's just name-calling. You can go on and switch a few words for insincere and ignorant conservatives. And I suppose it's all true - ideologues are shallow name-callers, whether they be liberal or conservative. No logic whatsoever, on either side. Now, if you want to drop the ideology and name-calling, and respectfully discuss differences in philosophy, perhaps that could be a worthwhile discussion. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:45 AM What Guest is really complaining about, whether he knows it or not, is neither Liberalism nor Conservatism, but merely the grandiose and excessive behaviour of the ranting and raving human ego, which is... 1. totally unscrupulous 2. concerned only with winning 3. and getting the last word 4. and is beyond shame or admission of error 5. and constantly sees its own faults in others 6. and never shuts up until it dies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Don Firth Date: 21 Jan 07 - 01:01 AM Beware of the fallacy of self-exclusion. Any statement one makes about the human race in general, one is also--of necessity--making about oneself. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:33 AM Nothing bothers me more than sweeping generalizations like "Nothing bothers liberals more than the truth." and the hyperbolic rhetoric that usually follows them. Such generalizations represent a "preaching to the choir" type of rhetoric that seeks only to inflame already held opinions. That type of rhetoric adds nothing to the spread of ideas. It only seeks to denigrate the ideas of others. I consider myself open-minded to reasonable ideas from any part of the socio-political spectrum, but if someone wants me to give their ideas an audience, they need to present them on their on merits. Simply slamming those who have opposing ideas is a great way to get some people, myself included, to stop reading or listening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Alba Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:42 AM Another bias "take" that simply makes any reasoned discussion impossible. Oh well... Jude:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: artbrooks Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:44 AM It has seemed to me, over the past ten years or so, that there is a group who is trying very hard to redefine the term liberal in order to have a compact hunk of muck to throw around. Anybody who really thinks that there is such a thing/person as a "liberal," one who actually has most or all of the set of beliefs ascribed to them by this group, is seriously deluded. In my own concept of the term, I am a liberal. I believe in the right to an abortion in the case of need (and I don't think I am the one to define "need"), but I regret the necessity for it. I see no reason at all to control hunting rifles or handguns used for self protection, but see every reason to ban private possession (with some exceptions) of machine guns and teflon-coated bullets. I believe in a strong military, but I oppose using that military for undefined purposes such as the "war" in Iraq. And, as a liberal, I believe that both Janeane Garofalo and Ann Coulter have the right to express their opinions in any forum open to them, and that I have a right to agree with neither of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: John Hardly Date: 21 Jan 07 - 10:13 AM This is an overwhelmingly liberal forum. One could speculate the reasons why it is so overwhelmingly populated that way -- probably has to do with the close historical ties between folk music and both the Labor movement and the anti-vietnam/korean war movements and the age of rebellion (teen-20s) that most here found themselves in as their heros were "martyred" by the HCUA -- granting them a huge injustice to rally around in those formative years of youth. But for whatever reason, this place is overwhelmingly liberal. That doesn't conclude anything about the individuals here and there politeness, or lack thereof. I've found the very polite: Ebbie, MTed, Magrath, BillD etc, and I've found the very rude: GregF, Bobert, etc, and I've found the condescending Firth, etc. One has to get used to the idea that nobody is "ganging up" on one as one expresses a conservative idea. If one doesn't, the temptation to sink to the level of the worst of the mudcat liberals has USUALLY proven to be too great. And it is VERY hard to talk around that worst element. It feels like an attack. And it becomes hard to distinguish that that "attack" isn't coming from the liberals generally -- it is coming from the jerk doing the attacking. It is tiresome. It's helpful from time to time to imagine if the roles were reversed and this was a site that had a natural appeal to more consevatives. I doubt that any majority is going to go out of their way to make someone feel welcome. And it's even more frustrating because of the times we're in. There is nothing "conservative" about either George Bush (either one) or "Neo-conservatives". Yet so much of the conservative punditry got broadsided in a mistaken notion that "Republicans" were still more "conservative". And at this point, with no political way left to express a conservative ideology, conservatives are often ranting irrationally more than they should. They need to regroup, recover, and figure out where they can express their public will, having been so soundly betrayed by the Republicans. And so that frustration spills over into the mudcat caldren of seething liberals. A nasty brew, that. I've often thought that if most here ever sat down and played some fiddle tunes, some jazz standards, or some folk/rock standards with me, they would stop seeing me as a conservative and see me as a like musician. And they might even no longer see an edge in my posts that doesn't exist. Just musing... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:13 AM Nice post John! A thought for the day: Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ...and while they are dangerous, 'sincere ignorance and conscientious stupiidity' are to be found across the political spectrum... and throughout history... But, just 'cause they did it... does that make it O.K. for you to do it too? Nope! ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Ron Davies Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:26 AM "Conservative" or not, Bush was "elected" in 2000 in a really sordid arrangement--and elected in 2004 due to a despicable propaganda camapaign--"Your marriage is in danger due to homosexuals" and "A dirty bomb could be exploded here in__________________"--implication--more likely to be exploded if you vote for Kerry. And the country was panicked into supporting a war in Iraq--due to another loathsome propaganda campaign. And a lot of us are not happy about it. And if anybody defends Mr. Bush in any of the above, they are likely to be strongly criticized. As Cronkite said, "That's the way it is" And I am a registered Republican--albeit one who never supported W. And I venture to say, on a conservative-oriented site, the criticism of liberals would be worse than that of conservatives on this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: John Hardly Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:28 AM "And I venture to say, on a conservative-oriented site, the criticism of liberals would be worse than that of conservatives on this one." The same, maybe, but I doubt any worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Stu Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:43 AM GUEST DICKEY - I would drop the 'ey' and replace it with '-head'. Much better title for trolling right-wingers. Interesting though, that in the US the term 'Liberal' is bandied about as a sort of insult dirtected at anyone who is left of the current right-wing looney in charge, whereas in the UK Liberal has a definite political identity as one of our main three parties is the Liberal Democrats. Also interesting is the fact most US liberals are probably still to the right of the political centre ground here in the UK (present PM notwithstanding). There. I rose to the bait. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Ron Davies Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:48 AM John Hardly-- check it out. On right-wing sites, or those to which right-wingers post, I've read many suggestions that liberals have no right to live in the US. Have you been told this on Mudcat? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: John Hardly Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:50 AM "GUEST DICKEY - I would drop the 'ey' and replace it with '-head'." Ron, stigweard beat you to the punch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,meself Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:05 PM I suppose having called for intelligent conservatives to speak up, to be a decent chap I should thank John Hardly for his longish post (thanks!) - that is, he does seem to be indirectly "self-identifying" as a conservative ... I may not agree with all he says, but I will defend, etc. ... And he gave a sensible answer to my question of why so much conservative rhetoric these days is of such low quality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:06 PM Ron draws lines between things... and makes sure everybody knows that he has positioned himself on the 'correct (PC?) side'. All one has to do is 'redistrict' his criterion... and he looks like (sounds like) a 'rabble rouser'... a potential demagogue. Like so many before him, what matters to him most, is that his 'righteous indignation' is justified... and that his choice of targets is 'oh, so appropo'... A liberal's use of unhappiness... transferrence. Bear in mind, Ron... Occasionally, I do agree with you... But from here it looks alot like you'd rather be in the PC fold chanting trendy political mantras... than finding truths. ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:08 PM When I disagree with someone over something like global warming or amnesty for illegal imigrants, I take care not to bash them. They could be right. I could be wrong. This is called respecting the opinions of others. I simply ask them questions and look for the truth their replies. They have the opportunity to convince me but replies like "any fool can see that global warming is happening" is not convincing and indicates a lack of respect for anyone else's opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Ron Davies Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:15 PM Thomas-- You're good at smearing. Congratulations. Any specific criticisms--with examples? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: kendall Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:24 PM How can anyone look at what is happening to our climate and say there is no global warming? Huge chunks the size of states are breaking off the Antarctic ice pack, the Arctic ice pack is melting at an alarming rate. You don't have to be a genius to see these things. I've said it before and I'll say it again; we will not move until Disney World goes under. Then it will be too late. They laughed at Noah too, didn't they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:32 PM Smearing? Not even... I stand by what I said. Use it, or lose it. ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:44 PM I appologise. I do agree that there is global warming. What I am not entirely convinced of is that it is man made, that it is not temporary. The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame I am not saying that everything in the link is true but it worth reading. I saw a show on the Science channel about the sun. It said that the sun's output varies. It also showed how Scientists think they are on the verge of simulating the sun and creating fusion which produces an unlimited supply of cheap energy which would get the world out of the fossil fuel energy crisis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Bill D Date: 21 Jan 07 - 01:10 PM There are many complex, inter-related causes of warming/cooling cycles...but there IS good evidence the man and his activities are affecting the process and making a problem worse.... In the face of such evidence, the only sane thing to do is to err on the side of caution!!!! Reduce population, get away from burning fossil fuels as fast as possible and allow science, not financial interests to make the crucial decisions! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,meself Date: 21 Jan 07 - 01:19 PM More to the point of this conversation, an issue like global-warning is one which people SHOULD be able to discuss without heaping abuse on each other. And really, whether one is "liberal", "conservative", "right-" or "left-wing" should not even enter into the equation; it is a question of science, after all ... well, I suppose I've slipped into a little fantasy world again ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jan 07 - 01:33 PM I was making that statement about all human egos, Don, and not excepting my own. Perhaps I have a different concept regarding the functioning of the ego than you do. You heard me. I said that the ego is: 1. totally unscrupulous 2. concerned only with winning 3. and getting the last word 4. and is beyond shame or admission of error 5. and constantly sees its own faults in others 6. and never shuts up until it dies. Do you think a human being, ultimately, IS their ego? I don't. I think the ego is a false identity, a temporary role-player, that has been pasted on top of the original human soul like a mask...like a dramatic character in a play. It's concerned with winning and survival (and pleasure and prestige) but it can't survive in the long run, so it's playing a game it ultimately simply cannot win! And deep in its heart it knows it will lose the game at the end. This makes it nasty. Unfortunately, most human beings have no idea that they are anything other than that temporary false mask, that ego-role they play, which falls off and ceases to exist whenever they finally become who they really are. For most people, it doesn't fall off until the moment they die...and maybe not even then! That's spiritual philosophy. It applies to something that I consider far more important and enduring than petty political squabbles in the 21st century between so-called "liberals" and "conservatives". Like most other people, I am in the steely grip of my unscrupulous and self-serving little mortal ego most of the time, Don...and I know it. The difference is...I do know it. I observe my own ego doing its nefarious little things, and I chuckle inside as I say..."Aha! I know what you're up to..." This gives me some sense of humour about both myself and others as we debate with one another over misleading and misused terms such as "liberal" and "conservative". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 21 Jan 07 - 01:39 PM "the only sane thing to do" So anybody that disagrees is insane? I am for population reduction and getting away from burning fossil fuels but why do some people oppose such things as windmills off of the coast of Mass? Norway get 40% of it's electricity that way. I know some folks who have a farm in upstate NY. They are getting a $7,500 per year lease per windmill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 21 Jan 07 - 01:43 PM Let's carry this thing to an extreme scenario... O.K.? As humans gradually replace all other living things on earth... it is likely that the biosphere may become uninhabitable to humans. Duh. I think science shows us that most overwhelmingly successful species eventually face annihilation by taxing their biomes to the breaking point. The old Testament shows us instance after instance... People who 'play God', bring down God's vengence. It will be so sad if we fail to use the 'brains that God gave us'... I do think we're suposed to be using these brains to ensure a healthy world for our progeny... and their's... and their's... ditto ad infinitum.. ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Bill D Date: 21 Jan 07 - 01:55 PM (remember.."be fruitful and multiply" was advice given when that was a NEED! Did God need to say "But that doesn't mean FOREVER!"?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: artbrooks Date: 21 Jan 07 - 02:08 PM That fact that the Kennedys (among others) oppose the proposed windmill farm has nothing to do with the idea, true or not, that they are "liberals." It is because they are ultra-rich jerks who don't want their view spoiled. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jan 07 - 02:13 PM The windmill idea is great. Why the heck are people opposing doing it off the coast of Massachusetts? Do they think it won't look good or something? Bill - humanity is constantly getting in trouble by taking good advice from several thousand years ago (or even a few decades ago) and assuming it's still good advice NOW! ;-) Dickey - Can you explain how that $7,500/year lease per windmill works? I'm quite curious about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Ebbie Date: 21 Jan 07 - 02:15 PM As humans gradually replace all other living things on earth... it is likely that the biosphere may become uninhabitable to humans. Duh." ttr That is not going to happen, Thomas. Mankind is greatly outnumbered by many, many beings, starting with insects. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jan 07 - 02:15 PM "Don't want their view spoiled..." Yeah, I figured. Too much money can really have a strange effect on people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Don Firth Date: 21 Jan 07 - 02:26 PM Little Hawk, for all of the tolerance of human frailties that you have shown in the past, and considering the somewhat Eastern philosophical views of humanity and the world that you have expressed, it would seem that I have a more benign and tolerant view of humanity than you do. At least judging from your recent posts. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 21 Jan 07 - 02:29 PM Ebbie... It has been happening, it is happening, and it will continue to happen at a much more alarming rate than global warming... IMHO. There may be millions of mosquitos in your township... but you out weigh them all. My 'extreme scenario' is happening now... Humans make up a steadily increasing percentage of the earth's biosphere every year... ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jan 07 - 02:38 PM Don, I don't have a good opinion of the human ego and its way of functioning. That does not mean I don't have a good opinion of humanity. Like I said, I regard the ego as a false mask that is in front of the real being. We clearly have a better and a worse side to our natures. The real Self is the better side. The ego is the worse. Thomas - You're right. Human beings and their technological infrastructure are overwhelming the biosphere. Such things happen from time to time, and when they do it leads to a drastic change, because the planet has a way of balancing itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 21 Jan 07 - 02:40 PM I don't want to broadcast their personal business but they have a large farm in a windy area and a company that builds windmills made them the offer. You should be able to find out the details on the net. Windmills At least one other property owner has been contacted by an energy company about windmills (wind turbines) on their property. This is a topic that is very much in the news from surrounding towns which have a joint project with which they're dealing. Some other towns north of the River also have projects proposed in their towns. The big attraction is money for the property owners, towns, schools, and county. Wind turbines are also a renewable energy source. Aside from that, I am pretty sure that in the US, if you have your own windmill generator or solar panels, The power company is obligated to buy your surplus electricity. I think if you get it set up just so, your meter will run backwards. Another efortless money maker is having a cell tower on your property. I know a man who owns a waste disposal company who makes money that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jan 07 - 02:48 PM You mean a cellphone tower, I assume? Hmmm. I guess it would be okay if one had a fairly large property. I really like the windmill idea. You don't see them much around here, so I wonder if we get enough wind to make them worthwhile in this area? I'm in southern Ontario, not too far from the cities of Barrie and Orillia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Ebbie Date: 21 Jan 07 - 04:06 PM I couldn't get the blue clicky link to go through but here is something to pick out of your teeth: "It has been estimated that there are between 2 and 6 million species of Insects on earth. This is a greatly debated number, and indeed one person by the name of Terry Erwin used a technique of 'smoking' insects out of the jungle canopy and based on the number of different insect species that were identified, he extrapolated (an expanded, educated guess) this to mean that up to 30 million different species could be in existence!" http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may98/892822857.En.r.html Do you really think that human beings will soon - or ever - outnumber bugs? If you figure there are at least 3 insects to each species, you might grasp the order of magnitude. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Don Firth Date: 21 Jan 07 - 04:19 PM Little Hawk, I think we probably have somewhat different definitions of the words we're using. Terms like Self (made up of Ego, Id, and Superego) get flung around indiscriminately, and the meanings get tangled and confused. Going along with Freudian terminology (the vocabulary of psychoanalysis, which is where these concepts came from initially), I think what you're calling the "Ego," Freud called the "Id." The Id is composed of instinct and the more primitive urges and drives; what later psychologists and brain researchers have referred to as the "reptile brain." The Superego consists of outside influences, like parental authority, social pressure, religious beliefs, etc. If I understand Freud correctly, the job of the Ego is to arbitrate between the conflicting demands of the Id and the Superego and try to strike a balance, thereby achieving a fully realized Psyche or Self (not getting involved with such concepts as "Soul," which is a whole other discussion). When people call someone "egotistical," or say they are "ego-involved," what they really mean (if they understood their Freudian terminology correctly) is that the person is allowing their Id to dominate. These terms are metaphorical, of course, but they're helpful if properly understood and used. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,heric Date: 21 Jan 07 - 04:26 PM cording to this biology lecturer, insect estimated biomass is 400 lbs per acre, worldwise, compared to humans at 14 lbs. http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:h-4RIjOy7-kJ:protist.biology.washington.edu/biol454/Lecture%2520Notes/Lec_01_Introduction.pdf+biomass+insects+worldwide&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Amos Date: 21 Jan 07 - 04:28 PM You're absolutely right that LH is not using Freudian terminology. Freud didn't offer any categories of a spiritual nature, actually -- he was trying to limit his analysis to something he thought of as the mind. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since Feud wrote, some of which serves to discredit Freud in various degrees depending on whom one reads. I personally believe LH's model - a spiritual being trying to operate a meat body through the intermediary of an ego/mind complex -- is quite more useful a paradigm. But it won't seem attractive to anyone who has no self-acknowledged, spiritual self-awareness for obvious reasons. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 21 Jan 07 - 05:18 PM Ebbie... I don't know if humans will ever outnumber bugs. My point has nothing to do with numbers at all. Humans are eliminating other species at an amazing rate... and humans are devouring as much as we can get our hands on, and we are clearing forests and topsoils to make room for condos and concrete, and we are changing microclimates all over the world thus reducing the tendencies toward species diversity and the rich evolutional possibilities, and when we've fished out the oceans, maybe we'll make 'delicious' steaks out of worms and flys and mosquitos... The more we florish... without replenishing... the less there can be of everything else... and the more there is of us. I mean... we're pretty cool and all but... I want sustainability. Earth is a closed system. It is our responsibility to know our limmitations... and our effects. ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 21 Jan 07 - 06:42 PM Whoops! Sorry !! I thought this was the stroke symptoms thead... Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jan 07 - 08:08 PM What Amos said, Ron. ;-) Freud had an interesting viewpoint, but I think that everything he was describing there (ego, id, and superego) was still within the limitations of what I refer to as "the ego". If you were to read some Vedantic literature or Buddhist literature, then you would be more likely to find explanations about the ego similar to what I mean when I use the word "ego". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Slag Date: 21 Jan 07 - 08:21 PM Slag turns and eyes the bait. He considers. He sees the discarded corpses of others who have risen to the bait. The bait trails so many diverse streamers that it could literally go anywhere. Slowly Slags glides back to the deeper parts of the pool and looks for a more inticing tidbit to float downstream. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Peace Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:27 PM I wish to add to this thread by stating the following: |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: number 6 Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:30 PM I append the following to Peace's post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Ebbie Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:36 PM Thanks, Peace. I agree with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 21 Jan 07 - 10:33 PM I wish I had such brevity, peace... Peace be with you. ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Peace Date: 21 Jan 07 - 10:36 PM It's great to see you posting more frequently, ttr. And with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 21 Jan 07 - 10:38 PM Here. is a prevalent attitude... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 21 Jan 07 - 10:42 PM Sorry, the link proved to be 'forbidden'... It was just George Will mentioning how China and India are expanding their use of fossil fuels, so nothing we do will make any difference anyway. ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Don Firth Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:02 PM Already have, Little Hawk. Read a lot. Followed along with a lot of friends when they got interested in Eastern philosopy and religion. Used to go to the Vedanta Center in Seattle some years back. Kept an open mind then, just as I do when I attend Christian churches and Jewish synagogues. I read philosophy, comparative religion. I like to know what other people are talking about. Helps me better understand where they're coming from. I learn a lot. Most interesting. Once again, I keep an open mind. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:28 PM Good approach, Don. I try to do the same thing, and have looked into many different religious ideas as a result. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Ron Davies Date: 22 Jan 07 - 09:02 PM Thomas-- Smear? Absolutely. "You'd rather be in the PC fold..." Asked for proof--or even evidence--you provide none. QED Unfortunately, contrary to what you allege, you do not in fact stand by your statements. Your MO appears to be----smear and run. Not the mark of integrity. But perhaps that doesn't concern you. Still waiting patiently for your examples. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 22 Jan 07 - 09:51 PM Ron... First off, please let me apologize for the stern and off-putting tone of my remarks. I am in no way trying to 'smear you'... I gave vent to a much larger issue for me... and you got much more than you deserve from me about them. That being said, I am just not even remotely interested in slogging through all your posts to find expedient examples to back my assertions, and further, I will not respond to what I sense as a 'passive agressive' style of winning arguements you set the parameters for... because the said 'technique' is designed to be provocative, so you can 'win' without actually engaging me personally. The larger issue at hand is really the more fruitful to all of us though. I believe that this 'baiting' form of arguement is largely a failure... and that people use it all the time because it has become popular. Talk radio. It has gotten to the point with me, that when I encounter people who insist on 'creating me' in their own image of who they want me to be... and it's not always flattering... I would just let them. Thing is... so many people are doing it, that I believe society in general is foundering under these pretenses, and that the 'good works' have taken a back seat to spin-mongers. Communication can only help us. Thanks for trying... ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Ron Davies Date: 22 Jan 07 - 11:21 PM I certainly agree that communcation is necessary--and talk radio does not help, by and large--it's just politics by bumper sticker. I do however feel that loaded terms like PC should not be tossed about unless there is evidence--and whoever uses such terms should be prepared to provide specific examples. As in any other accusation .In fact PC has become little more than a curse word at this point--in our circles at least. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,M.Ted Date: 23 Jan 07 - 02:05 AM John Hardly has spoken my name, and I am obliged to waken from my slumber to comment--which I do thusly: We can only act when we agree to act, and so to act, we must resolve our disagreements--We can't resolve our disagreements when the discussion is about quirks of personality instead issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Jan 07 - 07:07 AM "Communcation" may be necessary. But actually I don't think so. Now, communication--that's a different story. Mea culpa. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Jan 07 - 08:07 AM "Communcation" generally only occurs in monasteries, and even there it is relatively rare, I think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,TIA Date: 23 Jan 07 - 01:16 PM Dickey says: "When I disagree with someone..., I take care not to bash them." Oh baloney, what was the opening post then? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Peace Date: 23 Jan 07 - 01:57 PM Dickey is a regular member who chooses to post under the Guest name for crud like this thread. Ignore him and he'll go away to another thread whereon he'll use another Guest name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: guitar Date: 23 Jan 07 - 02:17 PM If I was in America I think I would be a liberal, well I hope so anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Amos Date: 23 Jan 07 - 02:23 PM Dickey: Oh, it's the Sun's fault. That accounts for the dramatic rate-of-change in temp increase that just coincides accidentally with the onset of escalating carbon emissions by industrial and post-industrial human works. Wow, amazing how we misinterpreted that -- who'd have thought the sun would go through such dramatic changes at the same time? Amazing we didn't notice it before. Look at the graphs on "Inconvenient Truth" and figure out for yourself what the correlations are. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:35 PM So who does the opening post bash? And why do you call a differing opinion crud? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,TIA Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:52 PM Oh puuulllleeeeze Dickey.... You are a screeching imbecile spouting foul, craven, absurd words. Your opinions are outdated, unrealistic, and hopeless. You are an obstructionist liar with a most shameless and deceitful nature. You are a tool, spoon fed your news, easily swayed by emotions, and willing to let others make decisions for you. But I am certainly not bashing you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:04 PM I'm still waiting to get his take on women. And quality footwear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: KB in Iowa Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:08 PM Especially the footwear. I need some new shoes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Captain Ginger Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:12 PM Nah, the man is 'da man' when it comes to hosiery. Believe me - no-one does sweaty socks like our Dickey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 25 Jan 07 - 01:01 AM Don't forget the Jeans. Some folks say that I'm egotistical Hell I don't even know what that means I guess it has something to do with the way That I fill out my skin tight blue jeans |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Stephen L. Rich Date: 25 Jan 07 - 11:01 PM Take my Liberal....Please! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:27 AM "Now I'm liberal...to a degree...I want everybody to be free. But if you think I'll let Barry Goldwater move in next door and marry my daughter...you must think I'm crazy! I wouldn't let him do it for...all the farms in Cuba!" - Bob Dylan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 26 Jan 07 - 11:22 AM Your kidding right? Barry died in 1998 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jan 07 - 11:32 AM In fact PC has become little more than a curse word... Kinda like "Liberal" out of the mouths of the mindless, ya mean? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Ebbie Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:23 PM Please, Dickey, note that Little Hawk quoted Bob Dylan... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: My take on Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:38 PM And the song came out around 1963 or something like that... ;-) Barry Goldwater was not only alive, he was campaigning at the time. |
