I consider it a compliment when liberals don't like me. It's a sure sign that I'm doing something right.
Unlike, Eric B, I am honest about what I believe in and who I am, warts and all. Deceit is not in my nature, while it's part of the required makeup for a liberal.
What causeth thee to differ?
When do you admit warts, and why would you have warts at all if a common sin as deceit is not in your
nature?
Another question perhaps, is what should liberals do to receive the truth? Don't just say "dump liberalism". What does changing one's nature and coming into the truth entail in your view?
And you still hash this whole "balanced middle of the road" nonsense, which I have never said.
Either your memory is shot or you're a liar.
Being in the "center" is part of your profile in other places.
One lie just seems to beget another. A common problem for leftists like yourself.
Would you like to openly call the conservative Christians here racists, as you did in your other writings? Or did you forget about that as well?
This may be your chance to actually tell the truth about yourself. How about it?
"Profile"?
The problem again, is the definition of "liberalism" you are using. Because I am making a strong response to conservative ideas, you intepret that as "far left". But far left, as we discussed [somewhere, probably one of Poncho's threads where I mentioned the spectrum is more a circle than a line], it is heavily
authoritarian. That I do not agree with,
even if I criticize the conservatives' blaming of some of the programs.
So I agree with many liberal responses to conservatives (when the few arise to make them), but do not believe in the big government. Many of these issues I really do not have an answer.
Notice, I have not jumped into any of the Arizona debates. If I were just playing a race card, don't you think that would have been the
PERFECT platform? Most issues like this; I can see the points on both sides. Yes, the policy looks suspicious, as far as racial profiling, but on the other hand, I can see why we would not want all of these people flowing in, often bringing their own set of problems. It to me is a difficult issue to resolve.
The same with the Ground Zero Mosque. We don't want to deny freedom, but on the other hand, it gives what I call an "appearance of evil". It looks too much like some sort of victory, even if this Muslim group is in opposition to the terrorists. (It looks to me like some force out there is trying to double-bind us with these sort of issues; do we give in to them, or violate our core principle of freedom? I personally also don't want it, because I like the building they want to tear down for it).
So I interpreted authoritarian liberalism (socialism, etc) as "far left, and
by comparison, took my own position as more moderate, though on the side of the left. I still do not think I ever pushed "centrist".
So then, when I see you define liberals as people "naturally" part of the "makeup" of liberals, making them automatically wrong; then
why would anyone want to accept that label? You're building a straw man and trying to define all the terms and make us play by your rules.
What I called racist on those pages was some of the rhetoric I was hearing, especially blaming minorities for everything wrong in the country. And a lot of them seemed to represent the "conservative" movement at the time most of that was written (80's and 90's, with some additions up to a couple of years ago). It originally reflected a time period when
self-labeled "angry white males/angry white middle class" were complaining very loudly, (again claiming to speak for "conservativism") and the very title naturally conveyed the sense that they were blaming other groups for "taking" things from them. You heard it everywhere in those days! So it often looked like a race war was brewing, as reflected by the works of some of the authors referenced. So I fired back at them, returning a similar tone, and used labels such as "conservative" for lack of a better sub-category.
I have never hid this, and used to post the link to the series in most of my posts in this section.
I posted it
wishing that people would read the whole thing and give feedback, and then stopped as the times changed, and I was not promoting it as much.
So now I've gotten feedback and seen people's reactions for the first time. So seeing how irritable you all are over the issue, I looked over it again, and see some of the criticism of "conservatives" is too
broad, making it look like it is directed at every single conservative (Though there is still a lot of stuff in there, that holds true for some people. Again, whoever the shoe fits) and can understandably put them on the defensive.
It also
still does not contradict anything I have been saying recently (have not "denied" any of it, nor pretended I believed any differently).
So I aplogize for the tone of that. For the past 30 years I have been very angry about all this stuff I hear, and how the liberals seem so wishy-washy in responding most of the time, and how leaders like Jackson and Sharpton put their foot in their mouths and are so inept in the issues (falls right into conserviatives' criticisms), so I tried to respond with my limited time and resources the best way I could.
The whole situation is totally depressing, when I see all the cutbacks on every level of life; both private and public sectors. Like there's talk of an entire suburban bus system being shut down, in a county adjoining NYC (so it's still heavily populated, even though it is technically outside the city. I'm sure Annsi must have heard of this, though I'm not sure which LI county they are from).
Yet it's bad enough to feel this tightening in life, but then all I see is people blaming others, who I do not see as the root of the problem. The rich still get richer, yet people want to blame the poor. And yes, the other side has gotten caught up in this blaming game, which is another reason I'm dissatisfied with them. I don't see
anyone as telling the whole truth!
So one side blames the other, and the other blames back. One side holds certain attitudes, and then accuses the other of it.
So then I hope this gives you more of this "truth" about myself you keep asking form and that you accept my apology for that part of it. I hope you don't just turn this back into some new attack, like how "longwinded" it is. (It wouldn't be if the topic was stuck to, and I wasn't demanded to have to explain myself all the time). I still would like to hear a better rationale for why you think so are so naturally geared towards truth.
Otherwise, as
Christians can we cool it with all the accusations and namecalling? There is so much tension and animosity on both sides, it is so stressful, and I tried to voice my criticism in a more interactive way, in the form of a question to give you a chance to explain your rationale. I did not think it would escalate quite into this.
