What characteristics define a 'liberal' as such?
'Progressive': Self-applied descriptor. Almost always a code-word for communist or socialist. The use of the term progressive is particularly interesting; what is it that they actually see themselves as progressing towards, and why is it necessarily a GOOD thing to progress toward it?
Government control: Liberals have an overwhelming tendency to prefer a bigger, more powerful government capable of meddling in every aspect of life in the US. In fact, it would be fair to say that if you do NOT want big government, then you're probably not a liberal. Liberals have gone so far as to perform a coupe in our education system in order to indoctrinate future generations and make them more dependent on the government. The liberal mindset seems to have replaced God with the government, to use the best analogy I can come up with. It doesn't matter if the government does something less efficiently and abuses its power, as far as the liberal is concerned, ONLY the government should be able to make decisions.
Hypocrisy: Liberals are overwhelmingly hypocritical. Feinstein works daily to deprive Americans of their right to own firearms, and yet she carries a gun in her purse and has machinegun-wielding bodyguards. Several key leaders in Handgun Control Incorporated, the Million Moms, the Brady Bunch, and other anti-gun organizations have been arrested for illegal possession of a firearm or using a firearm in relation to other illegal activities. Certain elected politicians will rant loudly about conservatives (real and so-called) profiting off of big business, and yet they have no qualms about giving military contracts to companies that they own, thereby giving them millions or billions in profit. Marchers at 'peace' rallies and anti-war demonstrations nearly always become violent when confronted by counter-protestors, in many cases assaulting or pushing counter-protestors into traffic. Liberals claim to promote diversity and tolerance, and yet strive to censor or even persecute people for simply disagreeing with them. Al Gore spouts drivel about global warming and pollution, yet just ONE of his several homes puts out HOW MANY times more pollution than an ordinary American household? How many times does he fly all over the world in his private jet?
Communism/socialism: The vast majority of liberals are, to some extent, communist or socialist in their ideals. Some are actual, blatant communists, most at least lean that way, and a few claim to be while not actually having any idea what communism/socialism is about, but they think capitalism is bad because so-and-so said it was. They love taking other people's money by gunpoint (taxes) and giving it to other people. Usually these other people aren't people who just got fired, are in danger of losing the house, etc. and need a little assistance while they try to find another way to support their family; they're career couch potatoes who spend most of their time snorting crack, watching daytime television, and *****ing about the quality of their free apartment. For some reason, liberals seem to think it's a really great idea to steal money from hard-working citizens who contribute and give it to ungrateful bums who never did anything productive in their lives. Most liberals are indoctrinated at an early age thanks to liberal teachers or college professors; this means that the majority of young liberals are only liberals because they're confused. The children of rich businessmen will wear t-shirts with a mass-murderer on them and claim that communism is the only fair form of government/economy while perceiving no irony in their actions.
Unfamiliarity with reality: Most liberals live in a form of denial. They don't like the real world. They don't want to live in the real world. They would much rather live in a make-believe world where everything goes their way. If they don't convince themselves that they DO live in this make-believe world already, they will strive to make this 'utopia' come about for real. Most, upon being rudely awakened by reality, will express outrage, indignation, and a profound sense of hurt that the world would be so cruel as to shatter their illusions.
Paranoia: Many liberals are rabidly paranoid. What's more, they enjoy projecting this paranoia on others, likely as a subconcious defense mechanism. Some of their paranoia is actually just a lame attempt at finding a scapegoat for why their lofty plans nearly always fail spectacularly, but much of it is genuine. If you think I'm kidding about their paranoia, repeat after me: "vast right-wing conspiracy". The CIA blew up the WTC and there were no terrorists in hijacked airliners; you can tell because I poured lighter fluid on chicken wire and it didn't melt or explode. Haliburton is responsible for all evil in the world, even though I never even heard of it until about three years ago. Zionists/creationists are everywhere and they seek to censor and persecute us, so we should censor and persecute them to avoid the threat they pose to us. If you fear what a socialist government will do, then you must be paranoid (again, ignoring harsh reality- how many socialist/communist governments HAVEN'T committed genocide or become oppressive police states?). If everybody owned guns, then my neighbor might shoot me because he had a bad day (projecting their own fear of their own irresponsible behavior on others to excuse their not wanting guns).
Nanny knows best: The easiest way to tell if someone is a liberal is to find out how much they want to meddle in your business. Liberals absolutely live for telling other people how to do things. It doesn't matter if they have no idea what they're talking about; they know what's good for you better than you do. You could be an environmental engineer and they could be a florist, but don't you dare disagree with their preconstructed views of environmentalism; after all, they know better. Liberals are always seeking ways to take responsibility away from the individual and place the government in charge of every aspect of daily life. Don't you dare protect your life from a criminal by using a gun; let the professionals handle it (an hour after you call for help so they can come draw the little chalk outline before hitting the donut shop). Don't you dare decide how to spend the income you earned at your job; the government will take your money and distribute it fairly to everybody else.
Anger/hatred: Most liberals are, at some level, angry. It's incredibly easy to tweak a liberal's nerves. Usually it takes just a t-shirt slogan, bumper sticker, or sentence in a conversation they're not even part of to set them off on a screeching diatribe. Many liberals are consumed by their anger, existing for nothing more than lashing out at what they perceive to be the cause of that anger. While they claim to be the tolerant, understanding sort, they are more often filled with hatred of anyone who does not conform to their ideals. They hate the nation that gives them the conveniences and liberties they enjoy so much, they hate the people and ideals that made this nation the best in the world, and many of them even hate themselves. If we could understand the source of their anger and loathing, self- or otherwise, it would go a long way to understanding what makes a liberal tick. Possible cause for the anger: they don't get their way, so they throw a temper tantrum like a three year old. In fact, immaturity is a major hallmark of liberals, so this could be a better explanation than I realized.
Ego: Most liberals have a major superiority complex. Some have an inferiority complex, and they're almost always the most bitter and hateful of the bunch. But the majority see themselves as superior. Nazis called themselves the ubermenchen and everybody else inferior subhumans. Nazis were socialists. Liberals call themselves enlightened and more intelligent, and nearly always refer to non-liberals with derogatory terms, like 'redneck', 'stooges', 'little people', or 'unwashed masses'. Liberals are socialists. At the risk of invoking a certain internet rule, I'm going on record to say that this is probably not a coincidence. But in any case, they nearly always see themselves as being better human beings than anybody else. They're smarter than you, they have more common sense than you, and they know everything there is to know about everything so you should just shut up and do what you're told, peasant. How much of this ego is genuine and how much of it is just to make up for the self-loathing and low esteem they possess?
Racism: This one is a landmine. Many liberals are blatantly racist. Most gun control laws in the 1960's were started by liberals, for the same purpose as the gun control laws of the 1860's: to keep black people from owning guns. Welfare panders primarily to non-whites, keeping them in the ghetto and safely out of politics and the fancy, up-scale neighborhoods liberals prefer to live in. Affirmative action doesn't give non-whites an equal opportunity; it tells them that they're not good enough to get by on their own and they need special help to do the same things as whites. Equal-opportunity employment was fine when you simply couldn't refuse to hire someone based solely on their race; when quotas were established so that you HAD to hire people of certain races to avoid getting fined, that just made it blatantly racist. If your company has seven employees and you need at least thirty percent of employees to be non-white, but the only people applying at your company that are qualified for the job are white, what are you supposed to do? Hire the qualified white people and get punished, or hire somebody who isn't qualified just because he's black? If I hired someone who was unqualified for the position I was hiring for because he was WHITE, I'd be called a racist and punished in a major media circus. Why is it okay to do it the other way around? Even more bizarrely, this racism goes both ways. Officially, liberals love non-whites (I refuse to call them minorities because they're NOT minorities; maybe there are fewer black people in the US than elsewhere, but why aren't whites considered a minority when they are fewer of them in Africa? Everybody is a minority somewhere and a majority somewhere else, so let's just call it like it is.) and will rant long and hard about how much they care for them, but actions speak louder than words and the actions of the liberal leadership all say that they'd rather die than live in a world run by the inferior subhuman 'muds'. In keeping with their official stance rather than their genuine one (there's that hypocrisy again), liberals will do everything they can to punish people simply for being born white. You can get special benefits solely for the genetic accident of not being descended from European ancestry. I have to pay more for my college tuition than my friend that immigrated from Japan or my former room mate that was black, based solely on the color of my skin. Tell me that's not racism. And of course, liberals preach long and hard about how anybody who disagrees with them is racist. If you're a conservative, you're racist, because the majority of conservatives are white (you know, like the majority of people in this nation). If you're a gun owner, you're racist. Nevermind that there is absolutely no relation between owning a gun and being racist (or being a particular race, for that matter), you're racist because they say so. If you dislike millions of criminals illegally invading the country and living parasitically off of your achievements, then you're racist. Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal. Once again, they project their own failings on others in order to feel better about themselves.
Diversity/Conforming: Liberals claim that diversity, which inevitably means either division along racial/ethnic lines (balkanization; you know, that stuff that leads to civil wars and ethnic purging?) or favoring non-white people over white people because, well, white people are icky, is good. Sure, diversity is good. You get people from different backgrounds, with different methods of solving problems, and have them work together to solve a problem, and at least one of them is going to have a winning idea. That was the whole melting pot theory- take people from diverse backgrounds and assimilate them into American culture, adding the best and the brightest to our own. The liberal version of diversity appears to simply be a codeword for causing division and hatred amongst people, fostering racism, and pitting everyone against everyone else because they're different. Ironically, liberals have the least tolerance for non-conformity. If you don't tow the party line, they will literally feed you to the wolves. If you're even the least bit doubtful of the glorious agenda of liberalism, then you are to be purged. They grab a monopoly in the media to prevent any other view of the world from being espoused and then claim persecution and use that as an excuse to censor dissenting views even further. Some animals are more equal than others I suppose.
Abortion/The death penalty: This one's controversial, but for the life of me I cannot understand why. It seems pretty clear-cut to me. Criminals do bad things, and are punished for those bad things. Murderers get the death penalty, the ultimate punishment for doing naughty things, and the one guarantee that they will never kill anyone again. Liberals hate the death penalty and love criminals. They feel sorry for criminals, shut away in prison and suffering as a consequence of their deliberate actions. To them, criminals are victims, and as I'll discuss in a moment, liberals LOVE victims. For some reason, liberals feel sorrier for criminals than the people they do bad things to. Why, who can say. So liberals feel the need to make things easier for criminals; they soften the punishment. Many liberals are tree-hugging hippies who think that it's wrong to kill, ever, even in order to survive (self-defense, to eat, etc.). Therefore, it's natural that they apply this even to evil people who have no qualms about killing others themselves. Others simply buy into the 'poor misguided criminal who was just about to turn his life around after thirty years of preying on the innocent' routine. In any case, the majority of liberals seem to support abolishing the death penalty, because everywhere they manage to take over passes a law making it illegal to properly punish wrong-doers. On the flip side of this coin, many liberals support abortion, and indeed make it one of their hot topics. They love the idea of abortion. Many of the ones espousing it are still into the 'free love' concept of having sex wherever, whenever, and with whoever. So, having a baby as a result of their actions sort of puts a cramp in their irresponsible lifestyles. Naturally, someone this short-sighted and selfish would much rather be rid of the baby entirely. Voila, abortion to the rescue. Of course, these same, compassionate individuals who scream and rage against those who think criminals should suffer the consequences of their actions are the ones with no problems whatsoever with executing infants. That's all it is. They rationalize it in many ways, trying to dehumanize the baby by referring to them only as fetuses, making all sorts of ridiculous arguments about 'when life begins', such as making it illegal to kill a baby after so many months of pregnancy (the heart starts beating WHEN? The brain develops WHEN?) or only claiming the baby is alive if it is fully delivered and takes a breath of air, thus making it perfectly acceptable to deliver all of the baby except the head, cut open the back of the skull with scissors, and suck a living human being's brains out with a vacuum cleaner. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the beauty of abortion- murdering an innocent child with no input at all into its fate and tossing the body into a medical waste bin to be disposed of, all so you aren't inconvenienced with the responsibility of raising a child. Does any of this make sense, or do I have to drink the Kool-Aid first?
Victim status: Liberals love victims. The overwhelming majority of liberal 'reasoning' is based exclusively on emotion rather than logic or reason. Hence, why it seems that the majority of people buying into the liberal agenda are immature, selfish, delusional whiners who would rather have ANYBODY take responsibility for their actions than themselves. Victims tug on the heart strings and make people say "awww, poor guy". The more pure-hearted liberals (the useful idiots) love victims because they make them feel better about themselves, whether through helping those victims or through feeling 'better them than me'. The more cynical liberals (the leadership) love victims because they can use them. They can manipulate those victims, and manipulate the useful idiots with those victims. They love creating victim status for people because of how useful it is to their agenda. Now, honestly, who here thinks black people are victims? Who thinks women are victims? Who thinks, in America, that you are a victim simply because of who you were born as? I get pissed on all the time by my university and life in general, and it ain't because I'm white (except for the whole affirmative action thing meaning I pay more in tuition and taxes). My former room mate failed all his classes and dropped out of college, and it wasn't because he was black, it's because he was a stoner gangbanger and a lazy bum. Plenty of black people succeed in life, plenty of hispanics succeed in life, plenty of women succeed in life, etc. Heck, when I worked at Subway, I was the lowest paid employee there. I worked there for six years and made less than people who were there for one year or less, and I was one of THREE men working at that store out of ELEVEN employees. So why do liberals assign victim status to people based on the fact that they're not white and equipped with a penis? First of all, they tend to view people exclusively as groups rather than individuals. Second, victim status is good for the liberals- if they convince someone that they're being oppressed and deserve compensation for ill treatment (real or imagined), then that person is more likely to listen to the liberals, now isn't he? If the liberals promise to get that person what he wants, he's even more likely to listen. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been feeding off of the victim status of useful idiots for decades, and they're not doing it for anyone but themselves. Many liberals also adopt victim status for themselves, mainly so they can get pity from others of their ilk. What better way to compensate for your feelings of outrage when you don't get things the way you want than by claiming to be persecuted? This ties into the paranoia and anger they have.
The environment: Honestly, I don't know why so many liberals claim to care about animals, nature, the environment, etc. ad nauseum and claim that conservatives and everybody else don't give a fig. Let's compare: your average conservative enjoys hunting, off-roading, hiking, etc. He knows how to navigate in the outdoors, knows the names of all the trees and animals he encounters, and learns to properly manage and cultivate the land to best support the wildlife so that he doesn't end up with a lifeless wasteland on his hands. He eats what he kills and in doing so he prevents animals from over-populating, devestating the environment by stripping it of all its resources, causing mass starvation, disease, etc. in the the wildlife. Liberals, on the other hand, seem to do more harm than good when it comes to the precious environment. This is understandable considering that most have never left their comfortable city apartments or suburban homes and follow ridiculous pseudoscience babble rather than actual, you know, science, but it is very annoying. They honestly expect you to believe that some idiot who's never been outside of San Francisco and spends all his time throwing blood at research workers (sometimes without bothering to find out if that company even does animal research) cares more about the environment than someone who is in the outdoors on a regular basis and actually knows what it's like. Thus, the ego and ignorance of the liberal going hand in hand as usual, the liberal sets off an environmental crusade and does serious damage. You know those massive wildfires in California that destroy hundreds of homes and threaten thousands more? Those were caused directly by legislation passed by liberal enviro-weenies. You know the fire in the Texas hill country that burned for the better part of a year? Liberals again. They moved in next to a mulch plant. Some liberal demanded they remove the 'eyesore' that was there well in advance of their homes, and then set fire to it when they refused. Yeah, I bet that was good for the environment. I bet the geniuses who set fire to SUV car lots (thus releasing more toxic chemicals into the atmosphere than those cars would have released in decades of driving AND causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage and threatening human life) to save the environment thought ahead too. You know, for tolerant, compassionate individuals, liberals sure do enjoy destroying other people's things or taking them away from their law-abiding owners.
Sexual deviancy: Okay, let's get one thing straight: I'm not going to kick your ass or set fire to your lawn if you're gay. I think you're a disgusting, sick individual with some serious issues to resolve, but what you do in the privacy of your own home and with other consenting, responsible adults is your business, not mine. That said, liberals are all over gays like flies on dog poop. They hold gay parades where everybody dresses like freaks (if they bother wearing clothing at all), dance around, and flaunt disgusting, deviant behavior in public. They pass legislation making it illegal to say anything bad about gays. You can't watch a tv show without at least one gay character popping up. Our children are being read books about gay princes or kids with two lesbians for mothers in public school. You can't escape gays, they're everywhere. Except, you know, they make up about 2% of the US population and are mostly concentrated in one or two small regions. In all my life, I've met three openly gay people, and they all had serious psychological issues. But for some reason, liberals love gays and promote them every chance they get. They even promote groups of child molestors, like NAMBLA (which every year organizes a cruise to Asia so pedophiles can have sex with children there and in Eastern Europe), though not nearly as openly as they support gays since there is far less tolerance for pedophiles. They support sex out of wedlock like nobody's business. They support children having sex and even getting abortions without their parent's permission or knowledge! They glorify people who have sex with animals (a form of animal abuse that somehow gets a pass from the tree-huggers) and even make movies about them. Basically, it seems that liberals are all for having sex with anyone, any time, and anywhere. In the future liberal utopia, there will likely be people screwing anyone they want- same sex, opposite sex, married, unmarried, children, dogs, horses, goats, appliances, whatever. "If it feels good, do it" apparently survived the 60's and 70's. Now, this is probably indicative of several things: many people who engage in deviant behavior, including sexual deviancy, have severe psychological issues. I think we can all agree that some gym teacher who goes around getting blow jobs from fifteen year old boys and fondles little girls isn't normal. There's something wrong with them. Again, what happens between consenting adults is their business and not mine, but that doesn't mean it isn't usually a sign that something is wrong with them mentally or emotionally. Second, it follows the whole liberal ideal of doing whatever gets you immediate gratification. That's what liberals are all about
: how they feel. They don't want to accept any consequences for their actions (like, say, children), they just want to feel good all the time and have fun. Hence, the stereotypical pot-smoking hippie, the 'free love' fad, all their emotional appeals, and the lack of hygeine. Liberals are people who never grew up. Apparently they heard the Toys R Us jingle and took it to heart.
Addendum to the racism one: When a black politician switched from the Democratic party to the Republican party, thousands of liberals called him an Uncle Tom and threw Oreo cookies at him to show that he was white on the inside. Tell me that's not racist.
Violence: Listen to a liberal whine some time. If they're not whining about the environment that they only care about within the context of their pseudoscience religion, then they're whining about world peace. Liberals are always having a demonstration somewhere that is anti-war, anti-military, anti-gun, anti-self-defense, etc. If you listen to liberals, then according to them, nobody should hurt anyone, there is never a legitimate reason to go to war, and if we got rid of guns then we would all love each other and give lots of hugs. You know, like we did for thousands of years before guns were invented and we were killing each other with blunt objects or instruments of pointy death. Regardless, listening to liberals, it's clear that they abhor violence in any form, even going so far as to claim moral superiority for being raped and murdered rather than harm a criminal attacking them. Except there's that hypocrisy again: liberals only care if YOU are the one acting violently, whether it's justified or not. Go to an anti-war protest and counter-protest with your own sign and shouted slogans. Chances are, your sign will be ripped apart, you will be violently assaulted by one or more liberals, or one of them will actually push you in front of a car. It's happened a LOT. And all because the counter-protestors had a difference of opinion. "Do as I say, not as I do". You'll notice that the majority of anti-gun organizations are equally hypocritical. Several members of Handgun Control Inc., the Brady Bunch, and the Million Moms have been arrested and even sentenced to prison for possession of an illegal firearm. One was even arrested for murdering a man she thought killed her son, but hadn't. All the anti-gun legislators have multiple bodyguards with machine guns that follow them everywhere, and Feinstein carries a revolver in her purse. In fact, for many years, she carried that revolver ILLEGALLY, until word got out about her hypocrisy; then she used her powerful position to get a permit to carry the gun legally, a permit which you or I wouldn't be able to get in her home state or D.C. without major political connections. And the AK-47 and .50-cal rifle she's always toting around at her anti-gun rallies? Those are hers too. Liberals always whine about corporations testing their products on animals to see if they're safe for use on human beings; it's wrong to torment those poor, innocent animals. So they throw paint and even BLOOD on people working for those corporations, typically people who have nothing to do with animal research. And where are they getting that blood? What is it contaminated with? Would they like it if somebody threw a disgusting, staining fluid that may or may not be riddled with disease on them? Probably not. Gun owners using their guns to defend their lives is bad, but it's perfectly okay for those gun owners to be killed by government agents if they resist having their lawfully-owned guns taken away. Remember folks, violence is always bad- unless you're a liberal.
Big Brother: Liberals love the U.N. If they could get their way, the U.N. would be the ultimate authority in the world. Nevermind that it's one of the most corrupt organizations in the world, legitimizes third-world dictators who practice genocide and ethnic cleansing, and is utterly ineffective at ANY of the things it was intended to do; to liberals, the U.N. can do no wrong. Why is this? Liberals have replaced God with government, and the U.N. is the biggest government there is. So, naturally, liberals will worship it wholeheartedly. It doesn't matter that the U.N. is incompetent and corrupt; it's big government and it's the closest thing liberals can find to their dream of a one-world socialist order. Again, referring to hypocrisy and violence, all violence is wrong- unless it's the U.N. doing it. The United States is wrong for deposing a genocidal dictator who oppressed his people and wrong for preventing mass-murdering terrorists from preying on others, but the U.N. is perfectly justified for going into Africa and getting thousands killed for no reason other than to assert their authority. Bush is evil for getting American soldiers killed (which, if you really listen to liberals, isn't a problem to them- in fact, they often CHEER when US troops get killed) and bringing war to another country; Clinton is Jesus for getting US troops killed and bringing war to another country. Remember folks, violence is always bad- unless you're a liberal. And the U.N. is the biggest liberal there is.
Religion: Liberals worship government. Many of them, especially out in California, follow new-age feel-good religions or practice paganism. Of course, their version of paganism, supposedly the same as what heathens (such as druids) followed thousands of years ago, is nothing like the real deal and generally involves spending a lot of money on quartz crystals, fake dream catchers, and incense. And I think the incense is more to cover up the smell of all the weed they've been smoking. If they follow a religion besides government and evolution, it's one that makes them feel good; as we've seen, liberals are big on emotion but small on logic. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to make them feel good. In any case, liberals claim to be for freedom of religion, but that just isn't true. Liberals are always whining about Christians and how evil they are, and most liberal rallies and demonstrations are hotbeds of anti-semitism. Okay, so they hate Christians and Jews. But you always see liberals defending Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, and other religions. Why is that? Well, there's a couple reasons. Liberals hate Christians and Jews because Christians tend to be conservative and opposed to many liberal pet projects, and Jews are the red-headed stepchild of the world- everybody loves to blame everything on the Jews. But why do they like other religions? Well, honestly, they don't. They hate them too. But they love to claim to support those other religions because- and this is where racism comes in- those religions are followed primarily by UNPOPULAR BROWN PEOPLE. That's right. It's all about racism again, and not a particular religion. Liberals love religions followed by non-white people halfway across the world, and if the US goes to war with people who follow that religion (or at least a country where some of the people do), then the US is evil and persecuting that religion. They don't care about the religion; they do care about looking like they like non-white people. It gets them sympathy. Islam is even more popular with liberals now because not only is it a religion predominantly followed by non-white people, but a great many muslims hate the US, hate capitalism, hate Christianity, and hate Jews. Hey, those are the same things liberals hate! So while liberals are having a field day with their brown-people-religion and thinking 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', the Islamic extremists are using liberals as useful idiots and thinking 'the enemy of my enemy dies next'. Once again, liberals let racism, hypocrisy, emotion, anger/hatred, and short-sightedness get in their way.
Bias/freedom of speech: Going with the liberal persecution complex/love of victim groups, there's of course, the media. Nearly every major television network is owned by, run by, and staffed by, liberals. Just about every news network has an obvious leftist bias. Most newspapers have a leftist bias. About the only forms of communication liberals don't have a monopoly on is radio and the internet. So, naturally, liberals claim a right-wing bias in the media and do their best to shut down right-wing talk radio. The internet doesn't HAVE a bias, but the leftists don't control it, so they constantly introduce legislation that WOULD give them control over the internet; every few months, a new bill gets introduced that would let liberals decide what would be allowed on the internet (the biggest free-speech zone in the world) or to hand control of the internet, mostly based in the US, to the U.N. so Big Brother can screw it up with similarly heavy-handed despotism. Personal blogs that espouse conservative or right-wing ideology? Gone. Online gun dealers? Gone. Conservative websites and independent news agencies? Gone. Liberals have also shrilly been calling for censorship of Christians, gun-owners, and conservatives in EVERY format- if you aren't a socialist, athiest, member of the Progressive New World Order, then you don't get the right to speak your mind. And yet they screech and throw tantrums if they aren't allowed to hold naked parades, burn flags, invade soldier's funerals, and call for the death of their own nation. Which we let them do on a regular basis anyway. Gotta love that double standard.
Drugs: Liberals are big on the war on drugs. They love drug-free school zones, which are about as effective as gun-free zones- that is to say, not at all. Of course, that hypocrisy rears its ugly head again because a great many liberals use drugs. I defy you to think of a hippy who hasn't smoked marijuana or peyote at least once in his life. And a great many more use drugs such as cocaine, LSD, heroin, meth, etc. are popular amongst liberals too. This isn't to say that all liberals use drugs; far from it. But a great many drug users will consistently vote for liberal candidates, because liberals are the ones who are constantly punishing the law-abiding and giving a free pass to criminals, or passing out free handouts to every bum on the planet. Welfare bums live off of the achievements of others, and consume their lives with alcohol, cigarettes, and illegal drugs. They will always vote for liberal candidates, because they know it's the liberals that continue giving them their free handouts. Huxley's Brave New World had the government passing out narcotics to the populace to keep them in line; liberals are a little more subtle in that while they are officially against drugs, they continue to support the habits of drug addicts with their policies, all so they have an under-class that will continue to vote for them. Another side benefit of the war on drugs is the militarization of the police. How often do you see cops on tv wearing black ski masks, body armor, and toting machine guns while kicking in doors and flinging grenades at drug dealers and the like? Liberals, who support only the government (and by extension, the police) having guns love anything that gives the police more authority over ordinary peons, and being able to kick in your door without warning and shoot your dog does just that. O brave new world, that has such people in it.
New Speak: Orwell introduced New Speak in his book 1984. The purpose of New Speak was, over an extended period of time, to render language meaningless so that dissidents were not only forbidden from speaking against the government, but incapable of communicating dissent at all. New slang was made up to deteriorate the use of proper language, the meaning of words was constantly changing, labels that made bad things sound good and good things sound bad were applied judiciously, etc. Liberals do this on a daily basis. They apply good-sounding labels such as 'progressive' to themselves and their agendas, and evil-sounding labels such as 'assault rifle' or 'neo-con' to things they disagree with. They promote illiteracy and a poor grasp of science, history, etc. by forcing schools to focus more on propoganda and indoctrination of liberal ideals than actual education, they constantly advance children who do not know enough to graduate to the next grade level "to help their self-esteem" (so the lazy don't feel stupid, in other words), and they constantly gloss over science, mathematics, and especially history so that they can feed the new generations their own psuedoscientific garbage without being questioned. If they don't skip it entirely, they will rewrite history to fit their purposes. The south fought for slavery, not for the right of states to decide things for themselves. The war of Texan independence wasn't fought because Mexico was violating contracts with its citizens and confiscating their land, it was fought because Mexico out-lawed slavery and a bunch of white guys from America saw an opportunity to steal more land. The US dropped atomic bombs on Japan not because doing so would end the war quickly and with far fewer casualties, but because the US is racist and would never have dropped the bomb on a white nation like Germany. You see where this is going. This doesn't even get into the blatantly false 'economics' they teach where capitalism is evil and exploitive, but communism is fair and makes everybody happy and prosperous. Of course, you'll notice that they never invite someone from Cuba, China, Russia, or North Korea who actually lived in a communist regime to tell the class what life is really like in such a liberal utopia. Liberals perpetuate the dilution of language further by encouraging ebonics, or thug-speak, once again using it as an example of how much they love non-white people. They also force others to bend over backwards to accomodate the millions of illegals invading the country; if you don't learn to speak the foreign language that those illegals speak, then you get punished. Teachers are required to speak spanish, stores must put signs up in spanish, and there is no requirement for anyone to speak english, the actual language of the United States. This agenda is far more destructive than it appears, and is going to lead to major problems in the future.
Failure to learn from failure: Liberal policies nearly always fail or make things worse than they were to begin with. How many times do you hear liberals, upon being confronted by the fact that EVERY attempt to establish a communist/socialist regime has resulted in oppression, genocide, and the collapse of that nation's standard of living, say that communism works, it just needs to be implemented by the right people? If something fails spectacularly every single time it's tried, I don't think it's the individuals implementing it that are the problem. Numerous other liberal programs, such as welfare, education programs, etc. consistently fail as well. Whereas rational people would conclude that something else should be tried, a liberal's conclusion would be to try again, but spend more money on it and make it even more unworkable. Either they are too stupid to recognize simple patterns of success and failure, or they're all insane.
Sacrifice: Liberals are all about sacrificing for the greater good. Of course, when you examine what they're talking about closely, it becomes obvious that YOU are the one who must sacrifice, not them. Liberals love taxes; they love them because then they get more money to waste on things that never work. Who pays those taxes? You do. Liberals will take your money from you at gunpoint so that they can spend it. Of course, a number of liberals refuse to pay taxes at all, and the wealthy liberals are constantly finding ways to dodge tax increases or make tax shelters for their money. It's nice to know that when they talk about sacrificing for the greater good, they only mean you and not them. They talk about sacrificing cars that are affordable and suit your purposes exactly for obscenely expensive cars that run on inefficient alternate fuels, while driving SUV's and luxury cars themselves. Of course, they can't be expected to give up their cars, right? Al Gore has established himself as Intergalactic Pope of the Religion of Global Warming and constantly tells the nation that they must sacrifice their lifestyles in order to prevent pollution that leads to psuedoscience global warming, and yet he owns several houses, any one of which put out more pollution and heat than the vast majority of American homes, and if it takes more than an hour to drive somewhere, he takes his private jet. Of course, he's too important to make the same sacrifices that you must make for the greater good, you see. Why is it that any time a liberal speaks of sacrifice, you're the one who must make that sacrifice, and why is that any time a liberal speaks of the greater good, that greater good serves them almost exclusively?
Mudslinging: To hear a liberal tell it, they are purer than fresh snow on a nativity scene. Of course, they don't want anything to do with a nativity scene, but whatever. Liberals always give themselves a halo of righteousness. No matter what they do, it's always For The Greater Good(Tm) or For The Children(Tm). Everything a liberal does is automatically good, because they are morally superior and know what you need better than you do. Of course, liberals are always eager to point out the flaws in everyone that isn't a liberal, even if they have to make those flaws up. No matter who the public figure is, if they aren't a liberal, then there's a mob of liberals gleefully digging up dirt on him to make him look bad. And if they have to invent dirt in order to make him look bad, well, the ends justify the means. And of course, since it's LIBERALS doing this, you know the ends are perfectly justifiable too. Again, I'll reference when a certain black politician switched from the Democratic party to the Republican party and they threw Oreo cookies at him to signify that he was white on the inside. Or the current smear campaign liberals are running against Fred Thompson, wherein nearly everything bad they have to say about Fred is purely imaginary and blatantly made up. Of course, they can't even come up with ORIGINAL mud to sling at the people they view as their enemies; just like Bush, Fred is simultaneously portrayed as a clueless moron and an evil mastermind; the liberal mind can perceive no irony in this contradiction. Suffice to say, if it isn't a liberal, then liberals are going to attack it, viciously.
Whining: This constitutes the majority of any given liberal's activity on a day to day basis. Cindy Sheehan became famous for doing nothing more than whine in front of a camera. Liberals are always throwing protests or demonstrations where they complain about something, usually something they don't even fully understand. Immaturity and emotionalism being hallmarks of liberals, it makes sense that they should be constant whiners as well. When was the last time you heard a liberal actually come up with a way to improve something instead of complaining about it? They're not interested in actually fixing a problem, if one even exists, they just want something they can whine and moan about. It's probably because of their overwhelming need for attention from the grown-ups of the world... non-liberals.
Analysis of a Liberal
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Favre
