The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness

Coming from a libby madman i take that as a compliment. Don't like the player's, time to get outa the game.

BTW there's toilet paper stuck to your shoe.

Take it any way you like.

If there is something stuck to my shoe it must be something you spewed out.

Political views aren't madness unless you are looking at it from a biased point of view.

Political views aren't madness unless you are looking at it from a biased point of view.[/quoite]As the doctor said, fits you to a tee.

Yeah i guess it is hard not to step in my words of wisdom.

Quote:

Political views aren't madness unless you are looking at it from a biased point of view.[/quoite]As the doctor said, fits you to a tee.

What wisdom? If I see any I'll let you know.

You're confusing wisdom with egotism.

Putting all liberals or conservatives in one catagory is biased.

Drnaline;8188 wrote:

Yeah i guess it is hard not to step in my words of wisdom.


What wisdom? If I see any I'll let you know.

You're confusing wisdom with egotism.

Putting all liberals or conservatives in one catagory is biased.

Quote:

What wisdom? If I see any I'll let you know.

Considering your medical condition i wouldn't expect you to understand, LOL.

Quote:

You're confusing wisdom with egotism.

That's not what the Doc says? Care to find out what your confusing?

Quote:

Putting all liberals or conservatives in one catagory is biased.

Shall i count how many times you've done it?

Time to grow up now.:cool:

This discussion is pointless.

"The point of his article, and he is a conservative, is that your instant rejection
of notions you brand "liberal" or "socialist" will doom democracy and America
in the global sphere because you're not looking at things as how they are, but
how you want to think they are."

Replace liberal and socialist with right wing and conservative , and the point is just as good . We are often victims of our own closed-mindedness .

So what about the Greeks, Germans, Japanese, South Koreans, Canadian, Mexicans and every other country on this planet that is either democratic or a republic? The idea must work for it to be as prodominant as it is.

That's where we differ. And alot of countrys would also say different. The ones that have accepted it have propered. New example would be Poland. In fact here's a list.
Made in Democracies - List of Democratic Countries

I didn't need nor have assets, just the opportunity. That's what we are offering.

Your right, it's just a notion. But a very powerfull one. One that has brought us to who we are today, and we brought along some friends. We can also afford to dish it out to half a starving world. All through that notion, amazing!

Where did you get that as the point of the article? Have you read the book, does it say some where in there that the author is "conservative" Or are you doing what you accuse me of, "instant rejection
of notions you brand conservative?"
There may be some debate as to how things are but i have not many doubts of how you want things to be.

I agree, and that's why I'm a liberal who spends a great deal of time reading conservative thinkers, and when they have the right solution to a problem I support it, and that's why I posted that link, because he completely nails it.

Hugo Chavez has opened clinics in poor barrios throughout Venezuela staffed with Cuban doctors; Hezbollah has offered a complete line of social services for years and is now in the business of using Iranian money to rebuild homes in the devastated south of Lebanon.

Hamas in Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and Evo Morales in Bolivia all have active social agendas.

Organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas do not merely lobby the government to provide social services; they run schools and clinics directly while out of power.

How I would like things to be? A world full of freedom and justice for ALL.
Would I want that at the expense of the U.S. being top dog? Yes, because
it's the only way it can be. You can't have equality if someone's at the top.
At the point when the world was a place of justice and freedom, no country
or government would be better than the others, and none would truly be
needed. Governments exist to deal with the problems of a society. When
there's no problems, there's no need for governments. This is the progressive
Libertarian viewpoint.

He is a conservative, a former neo-con, charter member of the PNAC, and
an economist whose opinions about exporting democracy where the basis
for this administrations foreign policy, and the invasion of Iraq.

What he tries to point out in that article, what you will fight until the end of
time to refuse to see, is that people in the countries you named (and yourself)
had precedents in self-determination and ownership. Even if you are a poor
kid in a ghetto in Mexico you know that you can sneek acroos the border,
get a job, get a bank account and have a chance to elevate yourself to
a decent status. It's possible to do that in Mexico, though the odds are
pretty tough. With the knowledge that such a thing is possible, people then
participate in the democratic process to ensure the gains they make. In a
society with a group that lacks even the basic means of life, and the majority
have no way into a better life, "democracy" means nothing, for they are
only electing another group of oppressors, so the ones who will give them
food get their vote, even if they are socialists or terrorists.

How I would like things to be? A world full of freedom and justice for ALL.
Would I want that at the expense of the U.S. being top dog? Yes, because
it's the only way it can be. You can't have equality if someone's at the top.
At the point when the world was a place of justice and freedom, no country
or government would be better than the others, and none would truly be
needed.

Governments exist to deal with the problems of a society. When
there's no problems, there's no need for governments. This is the progressive
Libertarian viewpoint.

He is a conservative, a former neo-con, charter member of the PNAC, and
an economist whose opinions about exporting democracy where the basis
for this administrations foreign policy, and the invasion of Iraq.

What he tries to point out in that article, what you will fight until the end of
time to refuse to see, is that people in the countries you named (and yourself)
had precedents in self-determination and ownership.

Even if you are a poor
kid in a ghetto in Mexico you know that you can sneek acroos the border,
get a job, get a bank account and have a chance to elevate yourself to
a decent status. It's possible to do that in Mexico, though the odds are
pretty tough.

With the knowledge that such a thing is possible, people then
participate in the democratic process to ensure the gains they make. In a
society with a group that lacks even the basic means of life, and the majority
have no way into a better life, "democracy" means nothing, for they are
only electing another group of oppressors, so the ones who will give them
food get their vote, even if they are socialists or terrorists.

You do not need that knowledge to try and succeed in life, just the will. People can try and succeed even in dictatorships and often do. I think whether they be social or terror oriantated, they deserve to know there is something better.

Francis Fukuyama

Politically, Fukuyama has in the past been considered neoconservative. He
was active in the Project for the New American Century think-tank starting in
1997, and signed the organization's letter recommending that President Bill
Clinton overthrow the then-President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. He also
signed a second, similar letter to President George W. Bush after the
September 11, 2001 attacks, a letter that called for removing Saddam
Hussein from power "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack"

He's one of the fathers of neo-conservatism, whose agenda you defend here
every day. You should learn who they are and what's behind what they believe.

No, you assume everyone on the planet values the things you do. Many of them
don't. Where's Sherman? He'd value safety over freedom, or so he said in
another post, and would rather communism to having to put up with terrorism... he'd trade self-determinsim to sleep more soundly at night. I
couldn't sleep soundly at night without self-determinism.

...and he's just in England, so we're not talking about the total cultural difference
that exists in a working-class arab in Iraq. There were plenty of westernized
Iraqis, the ones who benefitted from Hussein's government, and we totally
disrupted their lives. The people in the streets, the ones more friendly to
the insurgents and Islamists, didn't have much to lose which is why a civil
war and bloodshed are things they can not only live with but actively engage in.

No, you assume everyone on the planet values the things you do.

Many of them
don't. Where's Sherman? He'd value safety over freedom, or so he said in
another post, and would rather communism to having to put up with terrorism... he'd trade self-determinsim to sleep more soundly at night. I
couldn't sleep soundly at night without self-determinism.

After discussing something with someone else on another board (and passing
on this article, which they of course loved), I've come to the conclusion that
"liberal" might not sum up my beliefs correctly.

I place the most importance on the individual, the other person knows me
personally and knows that. The thing is, I place so much importance on the individual that I think it nullifies the authority of any institution, no matter
how well-intentioned that institution may be. So, does that make me liberal
or conservative?

I don't trust the big government, or bureacracy. I don't trust big business.

Maybe I'm a Libertarian who knows better than to trust the free market.

Maybe I'm a post-liberal, or neo-liberal, or post-conservative. Not a neo-con.

I'm against collectivism. I'm pro-competition.

The discussion we were having stemmed from, initially, a link I posted to
someone suggesting a liberal/libertarian alliance, to counter the theocons
and neocons.

The other guy got pissed and accused me, as he often does, of promoting
"ganging up on those religious white people you resent for not being as
educated as you think they should be." So, I'm an elitist snob.

Later, we were discussing the problems minorities are having and he proposed
(which I agree with) that minorities should stop putting being a minority
first in their minds and be individuals, leave behind their backgrounds,
assimilate into mainstream American society.

Right, they should, and so should the evangelicals and pentecostals.

He didn't like that, but why is it elitist to have that view about one group
and not about the other?

Why would one group's not thinking for itself be damaging to society and
another's beneficial?

How is not knowing or caring how old the planet is different from insisting,
despite evidence to the contrary, that it's only 6,000 years old?

He said I'm being a snob, and enforcing the cultural view of the elite onto
people.

Well, I guess I am, and that's a conservative action, being performed by a
liberal, to the objections of a conservative.

So there, post-liberalism. I think I'll write a book.

After discussing something with someone else on another board (and passing
on this article, which they of course loved), I've come to the conclusion that
"liberal" might not sum up my beliefs correctly.

I place the most importance on the individual, the other person knows me
personally and knows that. The thing is, I place so much importance on the individual that I think it nullifies the authority of any institution, no matter
how well-intentioned that institution may be. So, does that make me liberal
or conservative?

I don't trust the big government, or bureacracy. I don't trust big business.

Maybe I'm a Libertarian who knows better than to trust the free market.

Maybe I'm a post-liberal, or neo-liberal, or post-conservative. Not a neo-con.

I'm against collectivism. I'm pro-competition.

The discussion we were having stemmed from, initially, a link I posted to
someone suggesting a liberal/libertarian alliance, to counter the theocons
and neocons.

The other guy got pissed and accused me, as he often does, of promoting
"ganging up on those religious white people you resent for not being as
educated as you think they should be." So, I'm an elitist snob.

Later, we were discussing the problems minorities are having and he proposed
(which I agree with) that minorities should stop putting being a minority
first in their minds and be individuals, leave behind their backgrounds,
assimilate into mainstream American society.

Right, they should, and so should the evangelicals and pentecostals.

He didn't like that, but why is it elitist to have that view about one group
and not about the other?

Why would one group's not thinking for itself be damaging to society and
another's beneficial?

He said I'm being a snob, and enforcing the cultural view of the elite onto
people.

Well, I guess I am, and that's a conservative action, being performed by a
liberal, to the objections of a conservative.

So there, post-liberalism. I think I'll write a book.