Posted on 04/03/2012 1:15:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
I think liberals believe deep down that they’re never supposed to feel all the negative emotions that come with being human. They can’t stand to feel shame and fear particularly. They think themselves above such emotions and either ignore them or overcompensate for them. They become narcissistic as a result.
"Not suppose to"? Perhaps. But I think you're being too kind. I think they flat-out reject them. Liberals are having a two year old's temper tantrum against the difficulties of accepting personal responsibility for their own lives that they never get out of, because they are rewarded for indulging that narcissism by Leftists who demand obedience and votes for protecting it.
I recall hearing a short teaching in Buddhism similar to that. It goes something like; you shouldn't do things like wear your shoes on your head or casually throw your clothes on the floor because acting in a disordered way like that causes confusion in others.
What many people don't understand, and liberals almost militantly deny, is that people are not all equal mentally and emotionally. Some are quite strong-willed and/or brilliant while others are very fragile and/or stupid. And all ranges in between as well of course. When you act in a crazy or careless manner just for fun or out of apathy towards your own actions you do great harm to those who don't have the capacity to understand.
Tradition, order and mindfulness are very valuable and stabilizing qualities that go much further than simply being useful to the person who practices them.
Honoring one's parents and ancestors is important for those reasons among others. All of the knowledge that now exists among us is an accumulation of knowledge from those who have come before us. They paid a price for many of the things they learned that we now take for granted.
Liberals are driven by jealousy and laziness.
I am amazed at the sheer number of lefties on sickness benefits,yet,can still go out and party.
The lefties resent you having your own business and owning your home.
The liberals can´t think for themselves, they need NANNY to dictate their every moves.
Liberal can´t cope with you having your own views, they will label you as soon as they think you are anti-gay, anti-islam and so on.
Liberals will side with the ennemy of their country.
Soon in my country ,France, will shall have elections, sadly,it seems we will end up with liberals in power. Not that in France or the rest of Europe there is a divide between left and right anymore.
Well, it isn't hard to prove that liberals are stupid. Each and every day they volunteer a new example.
Many libs are atheists and dislike or hate their own country as well. So they feel unrooted and not part of the country. Strangers in their own land...unless they live in California or other centers of liberalism. Groupthink is popular with libs in these places, and it's easier to shut off outside influences i.e. conservatism. Inside the lib conclaves they can practice group hate directed at evil conservatives. Since conservatives on average are happier with their lives and love their country and therefore don't see the need to protest everything, they're natural targets of libs who are far unhappier and need a villain or villains to give their lives meaning.
Bump for later
3) Liberals see people who disagree as evil:
Before I left Minnestoopid to return to Texas, I had one “blind date” with a schoolteacher. She found out that one of the major clients of my business was Flint Hills Resources. Yeah, the eeeeeevvvilllll Koch Brothers! I quickly became evil incarnate and in league with the devil.
Chicks dig bad boys and liberal chicks are easy. So, ah, didja, you know?
Funny, but back in the day, I came to the same conclusion as P.J. O'Rouke, that a lot of guys affect liberal attitudes 'cause liberal chicks are easy. I just never went as far as him.
Bump for later...
Most liberals have arrived at being liberal not through reason (e.g. “Having studied the principles of liberalism and conservativism,and having compared the two, I find liberalism to be superior.”) but through emotion (e.g. “I feel that we should do something about this problem.”). As a consequence they are unable to rationally defend their positions . . . because they weren’t reached through reason to begin with. They never permit their “faith” to be challenged. Instead they attack the challenger. Most aren’t equipped to offer a reasoned argument in defense of their liberalism.
First of all, the word “liberal” belongs in scare quotes. Because before 1920, the term "liberal" meant the same in America as it still does in the rest of the world - essentially, what is called "conservatism" in American Newspeak. Of course we "American Conservatives" are not the ones who oppose development and liberty, so in that sense we are not conservative at all. We actually are liberals. Liberals who believe in progress of by and for the people, not progress for any Establishment.But in America, "liberalism" was given its American Newspeak - essentially inverted - meaning in the 1920s (source: Safire's New Political Dictionary).
The fact that the American socialists have acquired a word to exploit is bad enough; the real disaster is that we do not now have a word which truly descriptive of our own political perspective. We only have the smear words which the socialists have assigned to us. And make no mistake, in America "conservative" is inherently a negative connotation - we know that just as surely as we know that every American marketer loves to boldly proclaim that whatever product he is flogging is New!
Clearly, the meaning of a political term of such long standing as “liberal” was (indeed, is outside the US) could not have been inverted within a single decade without the cooperation of journalism. And it could not have happened if journalism were not monolithic in its determination to institute Newspeak.It seems outlandish to claim that journalism is a single institution and that the New York Times and the New York Post and Newsday are not competing businesses. Well, those institutions do compete - but then, so do the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox. But off the field, within the business of Major League Baseball, the Yankees and the Red Sox are partners. They hire umpires together, and they promote the idea that MLB games actually matter, together. Likewise all the big names in journalism belong to a single institution, and that has been the case for over a century and a half.
Before the advent of the telegraph, newspapers were fractiously independent of each other, and were as much about the opinion of their printer as anything else. Where there were competing newspapers, you picked your paper according to the congeniality of it’s printer’s opinions with your own perspective. The sources of material for news came by mail - people who traveled abroad might go to a printer and seek to be hired to write about the locales they were going to - thus becoming “correspondents.” And the federal government subsidized mail of newspapers from one town to another. Otherwise, newspapers didn’t have much news that, in principle at least, was not available to the general public as fast as the printer would be likely to get to print with it. Especially considering that few newspapers were dailies in those days.
That changed, relatively suddenly, with the advent of the telegraph. Telegraphy bandwidth was scarce and expensive, and so it was natural for it to be shared among newspapers in association. Thus, the Associated Press - initially the New York Associated Press, founded in 1848. The association of all the major newspapers into one organization did not go unnoticed, and the question of concentration of information control was raised. The AP responded to that issue by noting that the newspapers were still fractiously independent, so the AP itself was - wait for it - “objective.” Whatever merit that argument might have seemed to have in the early days, the association of the newspapers opened to all the writers for the various papers the possibility of having their stories printed not just in their own paper but nationwide. To meet that objective, writers write the way the AP wants stories written.
The AP has an official “Style Guide.” But it is not mere appearances which are controlled by the AP.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam SmithJournalists have always wanted to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” In other words, journalists want power. Power, to the journalist, is the ability to criticize the people who make things work, and have that criticism accepted and responded to. And that implies a desire by journalists to have the government, which journalists expect to be responsive to public opinion which journalists expect to be able to control, discipline business and the police and the military according to its dictates. So long as journalism is unified, that objective is only too realistic.The problem that creates and exacerbates is the one which Theodore Roosevelt critiqued in his famous 1910 speech at the Sorbonne:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.:The Associated Press represents the hypertrophied state of journalism, in which criticism is given pride of place over actual performance in working to a bottom line. It is also vulnerable to legal attack. It was held to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act back in 1945 - when the mission of transmitting the news over scarce bandwidth still seemed to make it too big to fail. With the advent of modern laser/fiber optic communication and satellite communication technology, communications bandwidth is (as the proponents of nuclear power overpromised for electricity back in the same era) “too cheap to meter.” Which is why we have the Internet as we know it. And why the AP could disappear without a trace, and why I hope that it gets sued every time a George Zimmerman gets tried by United Journalism’s kangaroo court (note that the fact that Zimmerman has been libeled is independent of any determination that he might in fact be culpable in the death of Travon Martin. Even felons have some rights).In reality George Zimmerman as an individual isn’t even the target. Because Trayvon Martin was never of any consequence nationally, and isn’t now except as a symbol; he could have been murdered by another black like so many are, and would have been memorialized by no reporter and no politician. It is the American middle class which is the actual target. It is the rule of law which is the target of “liberalism.” No wonder “liberals” are unpleasant.
HATTIESBURG -- Investigators said Monday night they still were piecing together what motivated a man to open fire at a Hattiesburg restaurant on Monday afternoon, wounding five customers and employees. 
But while Tyner called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and decried tax policies that favored the rich, he also opposed amnesty policies for illegal immigrants. 
While he said he’s seen police come to Cucos twice before in his five years at Payless, he said he never expected to see the business next door crawling with police and ambulances. 
The author lost his credibility when he quoted Rick Warren.
They obsessively cram liberal newspapers, tv news, etc into their heads and when the fantasy world is threatened they lash out.
The smarter ones eventually recognize this and grow up. Many never do.
bfl...
There are no smart liberals. They are all dumb and ignorant
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.