Posted on 12/20/2014 4:27:14 AM PST by Kaslin
Intellectual liberal that’s so funny it makes the ribs hurt.
The intellectual failure is in liberals’ mental inability to recognize how their philosophy is objectively false.
No, what Liberals need is a Biblical view of "right" and "wrong" and Biblical "wisdom" and the courage and determination to act upon these truths.
But then, they would no longer be called "Liberals", would they?
and whose job is it to get rid of evil?
Evil, as well as goodness, will exist until the end.
agreed. but again I ask anyone here, what do good men do about it?
I got it from reading an article in some magazine probably twenty years ago or so. The writer of the article interviewed of number of Oregonians. The message they conveyed was they had it good, and they didn’t want anyone else moving there to get the good life. I assume they meant Oregon could only sustain the good life for so many people. True or not, that was one of the messages I gleaned from the article.
>>>I remember reading articles about how wonderful Oregon is, and the message Oregonians deliver to others: don’t think about moving here.<<<
The six years I spent in the Emerald People’s Republic helped create the conservative who posts here today. I have never come across more insipid, clueless, and intolerant people than I worked with, lived alongside (and, sadly, spent time between the sheets with) in Eugene. This was in the early and middle 1980s, and I understand that the leftist culture has only gotten worse. The saddest part of the whole Willamette Valley experience was that I basically missed the Reagan Revolution, being cocooned inside the liberal blanket, and it wasn’t until later in life did I realize the greatness of the man.
On the other hand, I still really like Birkenstocks (great shoes) and Nancy’s Yogurt, and it is a great asset to be able to undermine liberal platitudes at a moment’s notice. And I miss my garden. Otherwise, it was kind of a mossy entrance into Limbo.
Does the sun rise in the East?
Bookmark
Anyway, if somebody takes your seat, you have to grab another one, even if it's not the one you want and you never saw yourself sitting there.
That may be what he means by saying parties are more about sociology than ideology. When one side moves one way, the other side tends to move in the opposite direction.
If you're a Democrat promoting de-regulation in the 1970s or 1980s and Republicans come along and back de-regulation in a major way, you'll back off.
Plus, sometimes policy trends go too far. What happened to the Republicans in the New Deal years isn't wholly different from what happened to Democrats in the Reagan era.
Hoover-era Republicans who backed efforts to build highways and dams and regulate radio and airlines backed off from big government when Roosevelt and the Democrats enthusiastically backed more thoroughgoing regulation and government control of industry.
Does a frog have a water tight ass?
Does a one legged duck swim in circle?
etc.
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.