(I could'nt find a cartoon with a fat man on a box labeled "Liberals", with an American family. This cartoon is perfect for what I state below, just change "British media" with "Liberals", and the family wearing British flag clothing with American flags)By Chappy
I am currently promulgating a list of contradictions which I have noticed among liberals. I will post each contradiction one at a time in hopes that people will make comments specifically about the individual contradiction, and not comment about a long laundry list.
I decided to start things rolling with the #1 most annoying liberal contradiction that I have found in my own observations, which is that liberals proclaim to the world that they accept any viewpoint under the sun, when in actuality they accept any viewpoint which is not conservative in nature. Imagine if every viewpoint conceivable was written on a giant chalkboard. To keep things simple, imagine that the viewpoints are categorized from extremely liberal (on the left) to extremely conservative (on the right). Now, imagine a circle being drawn around all (or at least most) of the conservative viewpoints - pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti gay marriage, families, etc. - and labeled as "conservative". Conservatives are generally quite open about what they stand for, and do not stand for, and for the most part conservative values are called "traditional" in our society. The heart of these values have remained unchanged for centuries.
Now, back to our chalk board. If the "all inclusive", "we agree with everyone", "we accept all viewpoints" liberals actually did what they profess to do, the liberal circle should go around the ENTIRE list, from start to finish. The circle should include everything from the far left - pro-choice, gay marriage, etc. - to everything on the far right. But, alas, it does not. The liberal circle stops about where the conservative circle begins on the chalk board. However, what is left is a giant, gaping contradiction: liberals do not accept all viewpoints, they are limited to liberal viewpoints.
Liberals do accept new viewpoints when they are introduced, as long as they are not conservative in nature. For example, liberals come out in force if a Christian attempts to pray in school (because that is a conservative thing to do), but openly accept primarily Muslim public schools whose Muslim school administration forces the children to pray several times a day (because it represents another viewpoint not on the conservative side of the chalk board). Liberals accept every "alternative" lifestyle on earth, and reject every conservative lifestyle. They are all for free speech when it comes to atheists and socialists, but are openly against free speech for Christians, and people preaching traditional family values.
This has to be the worst liberal contradiction there is. But don't worry I have about a dozen more contradictions I will post in the future. Have you noticed this contradiction? What do you think? Is it a contradiction? Or am I reading too much into this? Please comment.
5 comments:
That's funny that the cartoon is British! That just goes to show you that liberals are the same here in the U.S. as they are across the ocean in Great Britain.
Well I think there's a problem with this accusation, and that problem is you've simplified liberal ideals into the concept that all liberals are the same.
For example, when it comes to religion there are two groups of liberals, one that doesn't really care where or how people practice their religion as long as it isn't being forced, and one that thinks religion should be excluded in all cases for the sake of fairness. From the conservative standpoint, you would obviously think liberals don't want Christianity in school, but liberals think it's ok for Muslims--when in reality you're seeing two distinctly different groups and assume they're hypocritical. But from the Muslim standpoint, it's the same exact thing, because both conservatives and Muslims have encountered both groups and naturally feel that they're being treated unfairly because the two groups treat it somewhat the same but definitely different.
You might take it as liberals are contradictory, but in reality in order to be contradictory it has to be done specifically by individuals. If two liberals take different standpoints on an issue, that doesn't mean liberals contradict themselves, every person has different values and the world isn't so black and white. But if you were to say point out how one liberal approves of Obama but didn't approve of Bush on say spending, well then there's a contradiction.
But in that aspect, conservatives have been more outspoken as individuals, and have exposed themselves more to being contradictory. Take for example O'Reilly and Limbaugh, who as individuals scolded liberals for their hastened criticisms of Bush only months into office, and yet Obama has been in office for 6 weeks and they've been the harshest critics of Obama publicly.
But back to the original argument, just because liberals disagree with something, doesn't mean they're not open to that idea. Any rational person understands that even if somebody is open-minded, that doesn't mean they're agreeable. Liberals would be open to conservative views if they felt they worked(and in actuality, when you go to sites like Digg and Reddit, they're actually very pro gun rights communities, while still very liberal overall, which is to say that they probably recognize that gun rights are important).
And in fairness, one could easily point out conservative contradictions, and I think in this instance liberals seem to get away with their hypocrisies mostly because conservatives are almost offensive in how hypocritical and two faced they've become in politics, which I think is evidenced by the low ratings republicans have amongst even moderate-conservatives.
"For example, when it comes to religion there are two groups of liberals, one that doesn't really care where or how people practice their religion as long as it isn't being forced, and one that thinks religion should be excluded in all cases for the sake of fairness."
Thank you for bringing to light this very important contradiction. When writing this post I had in a mind a broad, global view of liberalism similar to that found in most dictionaries: "Liberal" - open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. The fact that so called "open minded", "tolerant" liberals aren't tolerant of others views is precisely the point of my post. Liberals proclaim to be accepting of all…except when it comes to conservative ideals (according to your example religion is the ideal opposed, some openly, some passively, but it proves my point nonetheless).
"From the conservative standpoint, you would obviously think liberals don't want Christianity in school, but liberals think it's ok for Muslims--when in reality you're seeing two distinctly different groups and assume they're hypocritical. But from the Muslim standpoint, it's the same exact thing, because both conservatives and Muslims have encountered both groups and naturally feel that they're being treated unfairly because the two groups treat it somewhat the same but definitely different."
Once again you prove my point entirely. My point is that liberals proclaim to be tolerant and accepting when in actuality they are not. They pick and choose what they accept, usually whatever is not conservative in nature.
"You might take it as liberals are contradictory, but in reality in order to be contradictory it has to be done specifically by individuals. If two liberals take different standpoints on an issue, that doesn't mean liberals contradict themselves, every person has different values and the world isn't so black and white. But if you were to say point out how one liberal approves of Obama but didn't approve of Bush on say spending, well then there's a contradiction. "
Perfect! Thank you for setting yourself up so nicely! You say that in order to be contradictory it has to be done specifically by individuals, ok, how about the current king/emperor/czar of liberals and everything relating to liberalism…….PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!! He campaigned on bashing Bush in a total disapproval of his spending over the last 8 years, in fact he referred to Bush's spending as one of the "failed policies of the last 8 years." Now, however, Obama proposes a bigger budget than even Bush…..CONTRADICTION!!!
"But in that aspect, conservatives have been more outspoken as individuals, and have exposed themselves more to being contradictory. Take for example O'Reilly and Limbaugh, who as individuals scolded liberals for their hastened criticisms of Bush only months into office, and yet Obama has been in office for 6 weeks and they've been the harshest critics of Obama publicly."
Maybe you didn't actually read my post. I specifically said that "Conservatives are generally quite open about what they stand for, and do not stand for…", unlike liberals who say they are open and accepting of all, when in actuality they are not for conservative ideals. Also, Obama deserves a lot of criticism because he has flopped on many issues but it has been swept under the rug by the, surprise surprise, liberal media. For example: the number of appointments who have stepped down, massive spending, his horrible use of fear during the economic downturn, so called "transparency" which did not exist for the stimulus, changing his website to remove past promises, stimulus package (half stimulus, half pork), his so called bi-partisanship, his religion, his ease of dropping his religion, picking fights with radio hosts, I could go on but I think I've made my point
"Liberals would be open to conservative views if they felt they worked…"
I know what you mean, capitalism is crap. I say bring on socialism! It has worked time and time again all over Europe and Russia. Why not give it a go! I can see why Obama is moving toward socialism, he feels like capitalism just doesn't work. Unfortunately in life not everything can be equal across the board, and it is not a bad thing for a person to be rich.
Socialism is a set up for failure. Let's take a good look at history and see how many times government only got more and more power while the citizens got dumber and dumber, saying the only way to fix something is for government to fix it.
"More regulations" they say, only for it to fail; their follow up is "There wasn't enough regulations!" How much is enough?
Here are a couple of contradiction:
#1. "Tax the rich more because they hide their money in tax shelters!" -Wouldn't raising taxes more just encourage them hide more of their money in tax shelters?
#2. "Corporations hold too much power because they can bribe officials!" -And yet they're the ones that set the opening for them to bribe by having government in the economy. Many regulations are lobbied for so that companies can hold monopoly power (check sales of medallions that require entrepreneur taxi drivers are required to buy medallions, rent cars, and limit number of medallions issued to create and artificial shortage to raise prices.) Monopoly powers are granted by government.
Post a Comment
I reserve the right to delete profane, obscene, or otherwise insulting messages. So please, keep it clean.
While you're at it, visit our message boards!