(Back in the middle of August, I made this series of posts as my Facebook status.)
If I were a liberal, I would believe that everyone is entitled to as much of the money I make as they want, except for myself.
If I were a liberal, I'd believe that God is OK with federally-funded abortion and euthanasia, but not with capital punishment.
If I were a liberal, I'd believe that gay "marriage" and abortion are rights, but that gun ownership and freedom of religion are not.
If I were a liberal, I'd believe that depicting President Barack Obama as Hitler constitutes hate speech, but that depicting President George W. Bush as Hitler is patriotic.
If I were a liberal, I'd believe that we should try to understand Islamic fundamentalists, but I would fear Christian fundamentalists.
If I were a liberal, I'd believe that the IRS and the Dept. of Education could make better use of machine guns than the U.S. Army.
If I were a liberal, I'd demand we all rely on scientists to tell us that global warming is real, but I'd want every woman to decide for herself when life begins.
If I were a liberal, I would believe that nothing happens, unless the federal government makes it happen.
If I were a liberal, I'd feel threatened every time a Christian tells me what he believes, but I'd demand he listen respectfully to what I believe.
If I were a liberal, I'd insist on respect for people of all walks of life; except for white males, Christians, fathers, and men in general.
If I were a liberal, I'd believe that rich people will produce no matter how little of their profit the government lets them keep.
If I were a liberal, I'd understand that people with ethnic accents are sophisticated, but people with southern accents are rubes.
If I were a liberal, I'd respect other faiths, like Islam, that call on women to display their submission to their husbands by wearing veils and burkhas and walking behind them, but I'd have contempt for Christian women who believe that they are called to submit to their husbands, but whose husbands encourage them to run for President.
If I were a liberal, I'd believe that it was dangerous incivility that leads people to disrespect President Obama, was that it was funny when people called for President Bush to be assassinated.
If I were a liberal, I would be careful not to learn more about Christianity than is consistent with my liberal worldview.
If I were a liberal, I'd worry about Republicans leading Christian prayers, even in private-sector venues, but I'd be fine with President Obama discussing "the resurrection of our savior, Jesus Christ" at an Easter White House prayer breakfast. Possibly because I'd be confident he didn't really mean it.
If I were a liberal, I'd think Christians were foolish to be offended by public displays of pornography, but I'd expect them to sensitive to the feelings of those who don't share their faith by not displaying Christian images in the public square.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
there's a similar version to this over at small dead animals.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/secondarypages/youmightbealiberal.html
It's a fun way to show the 'apparent' contradictions in an opponents viewpoints.
Yes, the lists have been multiplied:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/liberals.htm
http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2010/12/if-i-were-a-liberal/
But the legendary 2007 and 2009 Heritage Foundation speeches by Evan Sayet boil them all down to two principles: that liberals systematically take the wrong side of every issue, and that the real enemy is rational thought itself:
http://www.heritage.org/Events/2007/03/Heritage-Event-Regurgitating-the-Apple-How-Modern-Liberals-Think [click "Watch Online" at right of page]
http://www.heritage.org/Events/2009/03/Hating-Whats-Right-How-the-Modern-Liberal-Winds-Up-on-the-Wrong-Side-of-Every-Issue
When there are so many witnesses to a phenomenon, one has to suspect that it may be real.
If I were a tea bagging conservative I'd support American troops... except all the gays ones (who I boo at)
Oliver, I'm going ask you not to use homophobic slurs like "tea-bagging" on my blog again.
The gay soldier was booed not because he was gay, but because he was asking the candidates not to change the policy on gays in the military.
Watch the video again, and notice when the booing starts.
nice try Paul, but 'tea-bagging' is not a homophobic slur. Tea-bagging is a sexual act consisting of "lowering one's scrotum into another's mouth." Practiced by people of all persuasions, no doubt.
I also thought a tea-bagger was a follower of the tea party movement.
I watched the video again. The booing appears to begin when the video has ended. So, yeah, maybe they're booing that he's asked for gays to be permitted to serve in the army without discrimination, or maybe they're just booing him 'cause he's gay.
Either way, if I were a conservative (tea-bagging or not) I'd boo gay soldiers.
So, yeah, maybe they're booing that he's asked for gays to be permitted to serve in the army without discrimination, or maybe they're just booing him 'cause he's gay.
Either way, if I were a conservative (tea-bagging or not) I'd boo gay soldiers.
Instead, you are a liberal, and you prefer to impune and insult your opponents, rather than engage them.
when did i impune and insult you? i merely followed the meme you started of "if I were a liberal", carefully adapting to read "if I were a conservative".
Very Saul Alinsky!
when did i impune and insult you?
When you called tea party folks "tea baggers," you cocksucker.
classy retort.
Sauce for the goose, Oliver. I won't let you use my own virtues as a weapon against me.
As outraged as you claim to be about insults, here you are doing the same. Where are your standards?
Why not engage me rather than insult me?
Tea bagger is not an insult, anyway. It is a word that describes followers of the Tea Party movement. They put it on their signs at their rallies. Even the president himself refers to them as tea baggers.
My standard, cocksucker, is that when you insult me, I insult you back. Don't like it? Don't do it.
Tea bagger is an insult, even when the president does it.
But hey, I can engage: why are you offended by "cocksucker" but expect me not to be offended by "tea bagger"?
I'm not offended in the slightest. Call me what you want. You've called so much over the last few years it really doesn't matter.
I just find it amusing that you've got so upset about the whole tea-bagging thing.
You will have to admit that when Koch brothers first dreamt up the tea party movement many of it's followers used the term 'tea bagger' before it was brought to their attention that it had another meaning.
You will have to admit that when Koch brothers first dreamt up the tea party movement many of it's followers used the term 'tea bagger' before it was brought to their attention that it had another meaning.
No I don't. First the Koch brothers didn't dream up the tea party movement, and we never described ourselves as tea baggers. Cocksucker.
Okay, so the 'Kochtopus' gave the money that founded the movement.
Here's a link to some signs made by Tea Party activists back at a rally in 2009.
http://washingtonindependent.com/31868/scenes-from-the-new-american-tea-party
I'm gonna try and avoid any further mention of tea-bagging because it seems to send you over the edge.
Oh, Oliver, you poor, cocksucking troll. Your exhibit doesn't illustrate your point. And your assertion about the Koch Brothers remains unproven as well. The Tea Party runs on a shoestring. Money for it (what little there is) comes from groups like Americans for Prosperity.
But sees nothing wrong with all the different liberal outfits like Move-On, Acorn, and now the OWS receiving money from George Soros.
Poor cocksucker, doesn't like being treated the way he treats others. Thinks he's clever, suggesting that I like to take another man's genitals in my mouth, but dislikes the same suggestion being made about him.
Next time, don't just avoid "tea bagger", try actually making a civil, substantive contribution to the dialog. Otherwise, find another bridge to squat under.
You've misunderstood, I think. A tea bagger is the person with his balls in another's mouth. So, someone would be sucking your balls, and it could be a woman. So you needn't get all indignant about the supposed gay reference, because there isn't one. No one is calling you gay. Don't worry, Paul.
Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) was established by Koch industries in 1984. In 2004 CSE split into AFP (chaired by David Koch) and Freedom Works. Between 2004 and 2006 AFP received over 1 million dollars from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, a Koch Family Foundation.
In 2010 The New Yorker ran an article claiming the Koch brothers are providing financial and organizational support for the Tea Party movement through AFP.
If you can prove that the Koch brothers are not funding the Tea Party directly, indirectly or covertly then please go ahead and do so.
Like I said Paul, calling me a cocksucker just makes you look childish and homophobic and really doesn't bother me in the slightest. I don't care if you or anyone else sucks cocks or balls.
That you want to 'make a substantive contribution to dialogue' is laughable. You are a pathetic excuse for a man who derides victims of rape, feminists and women in general to get more traffic on his blog.
Thanks at last for the details about the Kochs; have you looked into the list of organizations funded by George Soros lately? Can you explain to me why it should be bad that the Kochs should fund organizations they approve of, but OK for Soros?
I don't agree that calling you a cocksucker makes me look childish. Sorry. You don't get to employ terms like "tea bagger" and then complain I lack class when I respond in kind. Responding in kind is part of the stated policy of this blog.
Finally...
That you want to 'make a substantive contribution to dialogue' is laughable. You are a pathetic excuse for a man who derides victims of rape, feminists and women in general to get more traffic on his blog.
That's just a libel; and besides, as near as I can tell from the comments, the only traffic I'm generating is you, a socialist, pro-abortion, anti-family cocksucker.
Which part is libelous?
I never said there was anything wrong with the Kochs investing their money in these organizations. I just pointed it out. And you disputed it, but now you seem to accept it.
Which part is libelous?
This part cocksucker:
You are a pathetic excuse for a man who derides victims of rape, feminists and women in general to get more traffic on his blog.
Now, why do you go get yourself a hobby? I hear racquetball is nice.
Sorry Paul, it's not libel. You being a 'pathetic excuse for a man' is, whilst being accurate, just my opinion and not a statement of fact.
As for the other claims, they are very easily proven.
I refer to this post where you claim at the beginning that you are following Robert Stacy McCain's rule #5 for successful blogging. Rule no. 5 clearly states that "You can never go wrong in the blogosphere by having a laugh at the expense of feminists".
In your blog post you say:
"Stupid feminists (a tautology) routinely protest in various states of undress in order to get more attention than they otherwise could. This is the sort of tasteless, tacky, and frankly sexist tactic that one would think would be beneath a self-respecting feminist (an oxymoron)."
Sounds like derision to me, all for the sake of more traffic. Pretty pathetic really.
Maybe you're the one who needs a new hobby.
Referring back to your other claims; I never understand why you always call me a socialist and family-hater. Can you explain this?
No Oliver, I'm not going to explain that, because I'm not interested in you and I debating which of us is the worse person.
I can't really imagine why you'd want to have that conversation, either.
I have new job, a new baby, a new hobby (which I'll be writing about here soon), and life is simply too short to trade barbs with you.
You contribute little to nothing to my blog, and for all the time you spend writing here, you could probably write a decent liberal blog of your own. But you'd rather be a troll. It's just a 21st century high-tech version of Monty Python's argument sketch. I make a post, and you say "No it isn't," and I say, "yes it is," and we just go back and forth. It's pointless.
Do us both a favor. Don't reply to this. Find something else that you think is more worthy of your time and talents.
Because if you don't, I'm going to start deleting your comments unread anyway.
Goodbye, Oliver.
Well, that seems fair enough.
Take it easy.
Post a Comment