Saturday, November 08, 2008

Things I would love to have liberals explain to me.

I realize that this post may sound sarcastic, which is understandable considering I have a tendency to let my frustration out with my writing. But there are things I hear liberals say coming from my set-in-stone conservative perspective doesn't make any sense. Maybe it's a lack of explaining the position or maybe I just lack the nuance to understand. And no there is no sarcastic intent.

I would love to have someone explain why liberals are for abortion, but against the death penalty. Shoot, I have yet to hear a valid reason why we shouldn't from Christians that doesn't involve the answer 'they may become Christians some day.'

I would also like to know why those that push gun control, including waiting periods up to ten days, but if a 24 hour cooling off period before an abortion is merely suggested the end of Roe is upon us. I sort of understand the argument behind not allowing parental notification, BUT not allowing it supplants the state's wisdom for parental wisdom (which I worry about the lack of both).

The modern liberals have tried to get us non-liberals to switch to the label progressive. The natural state of power is to lord it over people. The progressive movement goes back to the Magna Carte in 1623 through the English Bill of Rights to the Founding of this country. So, the question is, "If the government is to take over the economy, health care, and other industries in trouble giving the government more control over the body politic, how is that progressive? It seams more regressive to me.

Seeing how this country was founded by tax protesters how is patriotic to pay more taxes? And why is right to demand people do more for their fellow man when the populous donates more money to charity than our politicians do?

When the 25% of wage earners already pay 86% of the taxes and the bottom 30% doesn't pay any income tax. At what point does the rich pay the proverbial fair share?

If politicians (both sides of the isle) want us to pay more taxes, why don't they start with themselves?

If there is no market (ie no one listens) liberal talk shows, why should the 'fairness doctrine' be reintroduced?

With 28,000 gunlaws on the books and criminals ignoring those why is it assumed that the next law will make criminals behave?

I'm sure that there are some inconsistencies I have that I miss in myself. I realize I'm not perfect, but we have a new political reality. Some of these things should have been explained in the campaigns, but were woefully either missing or incomplete. I guess I did this to evaluate my beliefs and fall under clearly the standard I expect others to keep.


Ms.Green said...

You won't get any real answers to your questions - because liberals don't have answers. They only have more programs. And when they do try to give answers, they do it emotionally rather than logically. They're little bundles of emotion and are swept up into different directions depending on their mood du jour.


I realize this is just an excercise in futility, but someone has to try to reach across the isle to make them think.

Just John said...

Here's your answers (from the liberal standpoint):
1. Bush lied, kids died.
2. No war for oil!
3. Bush lied.
4. Change you can believe in!
5. Warmonger!
6. Impeach Bush now!
7. If you don't agree with the obamessiah, you're a racist!

There; didn't those answer all of your questions for you?


I realize that these would be the standard answer, what really needs to happen (Republicans need to do this to) is for liberals to try to convince people why they are correct. I don't know if they can.

I have a buddy that is a moderate. He was trying to convince me to vote for McCain (before Sarah). The best reason I received was, "you don't want Senator barry as President."

I guess I'm tired of being treated like an idiot for my beliefs, but at least I'm able to defend my belief. I don't know if I ever totally change anyone's mind, but is it to much to ask if people say my beliefs are wrong to expect real reasons why they are wrong? It seams like any more it is.

jagwio said...

OK. Here goes :)

I think the number one reason we can't get much political discussion going in this country is that most people are rooting for their team instead of for politicians that represent them (which requires knowing about more than just two issues). And I mean everyone, Democrats and Republicans.

I'll shoot off some responses to your questions:

Gun control: who knows. Personally I am against it, although there's a point somewhere between shotguns and nuclear warheads where we have to draw the line - I'm not sure where that is exactly.)

Abortion: I don't believe a fetus (first term) is a human. Here too, there is a line somewhere between taking the morning after pill and third term abortions. I don't believe *first term* abortions are murder, while the death penalty is, simply put, murder.

Paragraph on Progressives: I don't care what you call me. All I will say is that a little bit of Socialist policy in America has served us well (public roads, communications, education, healthcare, etc.) Used correctly, Society benefits. Used too much and we have Fascism. And I think we are a long way off from (America) being a Fascist state.

I've never seen a politician who wasn't a greedy liar, either (outside local elections). It's fair and prudent for society that we help those who can't help themselves. A great myth in America is that most welfare programs are benefiting those who could but don't work - this isn't true.

I don't get this Fairness Doctrine stuff - at this point in the country we have such diverse media that almost anyone's point of view can be heard. On the other hand, the airwaves are public and I think the argument is valid that market forces shouldn't be the sole authority on who gets to say what over the air. What I would like to see is more independent voice in the media - but I wouldn't support a law forcing it.

Also, you forgot one: Trans-Fats. I am very very Liberal in my outlook (though not a Democrat, ugh). My litmus test to see if someone is a thinking Liberal or a knee-jerk Liberal is to ask them if those should be banned. If they say yes, well... I can see where they would take the state of human Freedom in America. And I know it wouldn't be a good place.



Your definition of socialism is to broad. There are specific reasons for roads ranging from interstate commerce, general welfare, to protection from threats both foriegn and domestic.

As far as the death penalty goes, I've heard that it's just wrong. You are the first that has called it murder. What do you base that on? My whole point is the left just declares something and expects everyone to agree with them. The moderates wonder why us conservatives don't comprimise...well, how can we change our opinion if we aren't convinced we are wrong.

I've written before why I believe in the death penalty but the readers digest is:

1. Once the murderer, rapists, or child molester is excuted there is no chance they will re-offend.
2. There is no chance of escaping incarseration.
3. There are things evil enough that warrent death
4. It makes it easier for victims to heal knowing that the monster will never see another birthday. It is one of those things that can't fully be explained if you aren't a survivor.

From reading the Federalist Papers and other of the Founders they intend the populace to be well armed. I remember reading the Militia Act of 1793. It said that all private citizens should be at least as well armed as a private in the army. As far as I'm concerned I have no problem with people owning cannons (ie the Napolean style et al)...tactical nukes that's another story

jagwio said...

DR - I don't expect you to agree with me, but you did ask :)

I would say it's murder, because it's not killing someone in personal self defense. You can make a good argument that society benefits, and I for one am certainly not going to cry over those who get the death penalty justly. It's near the bottom of the list of America's important issues. I do, however, think that all life is sacred and that it is not for us to decide to end the life of our fellow humans except in personal self defense.

Gun/munitions control is interesting to me, because I think everyone draws the line somewhere. We can't have people in apartment buildings storing dynamite, for instance. What about RPG launchers? How about neurotoxins or biological agents? That would be interesting to me to know where and why you as a Conservative draw the line.

What I would like to see is for people who actually think about issues publicly debate (like this). I am so sick of all the hubris between whiny Democrats and self-righteous Republicans. The political climate is so polarized that most people are basically voting for "their side" when the politicians aren't representing either "side." When will we here real Conservative opinions (National Review, etc. so tired of Neo-Cons) and real Liberal opinions (The New Yorker, etc, so tired of whiny "revolutionists") in the media along with radicals who actually have a thought-out idea. I'm not holding my breath. Maybe our opinions are just not as exciting.



The link in the 2nd Amendment Primer links to what I have said about gun control before. I don't like the idea of government banning anything on principle. Again, I think the Militia act of 1793 is a good bench mark how far people should go. I don't really have an issue with the thought of people owning RPG seeing how easily they are available in the third world. Theoretically, I come from the position that if government doesn't want people to have it-it is a good thing to have. Common sense should be the guide what people can own, not a bunch of power hungry politicians that know nothing about firearms (ie if someone has a tendency toward rage they shouldn't own a paper clip, but I don't really want government regulating it because it makes it to easy to walk over an individuals rights)

I'm tired of the lack of real debate too.

jagwio said...

I'll have to look up the references... Thanks for the frank explanation.