Skip to comments.Are Liberals trying to Annoy Us? [Trying to be Nutty?]
Posted on 01/31/2014 4:24:09 AM PST by Moseley
Republicans need to recognize an important fact: Liberalism is not driven by any real political philosophy but by resentment, bitterness, and anger toward mainstream society. Conservatives keep trying to patiently and politely point out where Democrat candidates are factually and logically wrong.
That cannot work because liberalism is not about facts or logic. You cant explain the Democrat Party (which liberals took over starting in 1968). What is happening to our country is not about issues. (But, a clarification: I am focusing here on liberal activists and leaders. Many ordinary individuals are just caught up in their rhetoric.)
The Left irritates society with ever-more loony ideas. Conservatives think they can reason with liberals. But crazy is their goal, because liberals are trying to annoy people on purpose. Upsetting the mainstream is a way of expressing anger and bitterness. So reasoning with liberals is exactly what they dont want. They want to make you upset. Conservatives are trying to argue logic to a teenage boy who is bitter and angry at his parents. Liberalism is like a teenage girl who really wants to annoy her parents by dating a 30 year old covered in tattoos from a biker gang. Liberal complaints are actually proxies substituting for other issues.
Similarly, whatever mainstream society admires, enjoys or takes pleasure in liberals are determined to tear down, attack, and smear. If you are happy, liberals must put a stop to that. Misery loves company. They need to prove that what most people enjoy and admire is actually bad or evil. Mainstream society is happy only because we are ignorant. If only we were as enlightened as liberals, we would be miserable along with them. The Left is convinced that societal happiness comes at the expense of harmful side effects that we are ignoring.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Americas Founding Fathers used to be admired. So to express anger at the country, the liberals in the U.S.A. must tear down whatever the culture admires, and prove what awful people the Founding Fathers truly were. The U.S.A. has prospered with the automobile. So liberals have to despise the car culture and tear it down.
Americans love their country
Americans love their country. So for decades liberals have been trying to convince everyone how horrible our nation is and the ugly side of its history. Because this indoctrination is concentrated in the schools, adults dont always realize how severe this anti-American drumbeat has been behind the closed classroom door.
Americans honored their military
Americans honored their military. So the Left had to tear down and smear those who serve in the armed forces as monsters and baby killers. I recently interviewed Hollywood film-maker Jack Marino on the radio. Marino created a Vietnam War movie showing U.S. soldiers in a positive light. The movie Forgotten Heroes is complete, but because it has a positive spin, he cant get it distributed to movie theaters and has been black-balled in Hollywood.
If the goal were to change policies about war, liberals would attack national leaders who actually make the decisions to go to war. Why the nastiness towards our boys in uniform since the 1960s? The Leftist goal is not a new national strategy. The goal is tearing down whatever most Americans cherish. The only reason to attack the soldiers is out of general hatred for the country, to prove that society as a whole is wrong and they are right.
Marriage and the nuclear family were once admired greatly
Marriage and the nuclear family were once admired greatly. So the Left has spent decades tearing them down. Men are dumb, and wife-beaters too. Children unloved and neglected. Men attracted sexually to children are rare, yet somehow to hear liberals and divorce lawyers tell it sexual abuse in families is almost universal. Such nonsense makes sense only to those who want to attack what other people cherish.
Recently, football is under attack. People like football. So those who want to express their anger at society cant resist attacking whatever the majority of the population enjoys and likes. They tell us movie popcorn is unhealthy, because most people like movie popcorn. (Popcorn is just corn. Butter is simply milk.)
Keep this firmly in mind. Liberals can’t do anything without conservatives’ money. Conservatives ought to be smart enough to find dozens of ways to avoid financing Liberals’ drug dreams of becoming gods and ruling over others.
Regarding football, I don’t have much respect for a sport that refuses to exist without a government subsidy. Otherwise, people make choices, and live with the consequences, and injury was always known to be a part of the sport.
Regarding liberals, they often try to gross out our sensibilities, but they are very easily annoyed. All you have to do is present facts, and I do enjoy annoying them. they are so thin-skinned. They post insulting and condescending things about that which they don’t like - conservatives, Republicans, Tea partiers, America, capitalism. They are horrible insulted when I reply. I’ve been unfriended by most of the liberals, and those remaining don’t post anything political where I can see it. I still like and save stuff that I know will get under their skin.
..they are at the edge of the abyss...bound to take another step, they can’t help it
I Love Logic
This liberal hatred for everything is what leads the most unstable among their ranks to commit mass shootings.
The guy is pretty much wrong
The liberal goal is to root out all traces of Victorian morals and manners. There shall be no restraints of custom nor religion. Individuals must be free to do and act as they please.
Liberals are the annoying teenagers that are mocking everything their parents do. When they speak of “the grown-up in the room”, they are clearly not speaking about the liberal mindset. The worst thing that can happen to a liberal is to get things his or her own way, as witness the intended and unintended consequences of getting “free” medicalcare (one word intentional) in that omnibus tax bill formally called “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010”, and commonly known as Obamacare.
Face it, people, America has been mocked and sneered at, scorned for who they are, and been the object of pointing fingers and derisive laughter, a deliberate attempt to provoke anger and retaliation. Suckers, they call us, slaves to convention and tied to material things, but at the same time, they enjoy the fruits of all this providence, with a “Whatcha done for me lately” attitude when reminded of their lack of ambition and thrift.
Well, the Universe is a cruel and unforgiving place, and all accounts have to be balanced sometime. There are millennia of hard-won wisdom, paid for in grief, tears and premature failure, that have been accumulated, and are a far more valuable capital than mere wealth or fame.
Angry, unsure, but very loud and demanding, the liberal cannot see much beyond the immediate moment, and acts on impulse, with neither the experience nor the judgment to determine the best course forward even moment to moment, let alone the planning that projects far into the future.
The adult is torn between bringing a fetch upside the head of the unruly adolescent, and simply standing back, arms folded and keeping all commentary contained, while the rambunctious youth continues to make a fool of himself (or herself), to eventually pay the consequences.
Most adolescents eventually outgrow this stage, and appalled at their past behavior, set about becoming adults with a great deal of contrition. But some NEVER grow up, and continue being a perpetual pain all their lives. Unfortunately, by this time, they have become a totally sociopathic personality, obsessed with getting their own way, and sincerely believing (because it has always worked for them) that they can charm their way out of anything. But once that charm gets stripped away, because of some exceptionally egregious action or behavior (”jumping the shark”), just about every tacit vestige of support vanishes. Only the True Believers remain, and they are as screwed up as the Alpha Rebel, enshrining and extolling the imagined virtues of the fallen idol.
TRs analysis fits. IMHO the critic (i.e., journalists - and politicians who align themselves with journalists against the man in the arena) act as they do to promote themselves (to be someone who counts as TR put it) and position themselves as the equal and even the superior of the man in the arena who takes risks that the critic dares not hazard. This article positions the critic as childish - but the tactic works. We all have a tendency to fall for that con.
- From Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 speech at the Sarbonne:
- There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
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 natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.
The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors. And as we cannot always be satisfied merely with being admired, unless we can at the same time persuade ourselves that we are in some degree really worthy of admiration; so we cannot always be satisfied merely with being believed, unless we are at the same time conscious that we are really worthy of belief. As the desire of praise and that of praise-worthiness, though very much a-kin, are yet distinct and separate desires; so the desire of being believed and that of being worthy of belief, though very much a-kin too, are equally distinct and separate desires.
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments
The Left has embraced the post-modernist philosophy that “What is is wrong.” Whether it’s proven, time-tested, utterly reliable, unimpeachable, and bullet-proof, if it exists at all it must be discarded. The world is so broken that it cannot be saved. It must all be destroyed so that something else — ANYTHING else — can take its place.
It’s partly anarchic, partly nihilistic, and partly stale bong water. But it is what drives the iconoclast Left and, as the author points out, it does not answer to reason.
Since I don’t follow sports the subsidy part was a surprise. Are you referring to stadiums?
Hatred of God.
“Since I dont follow sports the subsidy part was a surprise. Are you referring to stadiums?”