There is a difference, however, between real discussion and the sophomoric, "bull session" tripe that ignores certain principles that would lead to those afore mentioned results.
How does one go about changing another's mind about an issue when two totally different mind sets are involved?
As an example, if you are a liberal, what would it take to convince you that government has gone beyond reason, and certainly beyond the anticipated scope envisioned by the framers, when it comes to the influence government should have in citizens' lives?
What would it take for you to develop a respect for The Constitution as a document of principles by which we are to be governed?
Conservatives believe that although the Constitution was written over 200 years ago, its principles and doctrines are timeless and apply as significantly today as they did when it was written. We believe it lives as is and breathes by means of amendment, not by judicial or executive decree.
Because it is a document of principles, the Constitution is better than the constitution of, say, South Africa.
The very fact that the Constitution limits the power of government is a good thing and consistent with the intent of those who wrote and established it.
What would it take for liberals to understand the real meaning of a deep respect for life? They give lip service to it from time to time, but focus more on how to modify the punishment of criminals, while removing many safeguards that protect the general citizenry.
Liberals seem to prefer to believe that criminals can be "reformed" if they are just given enough education and opportunity. They by-and-large reject capital punishment and would rather allow for the possibility that rapists and murderers might one day be "rehabilitated" and released back into society.
They further choose to believe that, although the DNA is distinctive, a "fetus" is part of a woman's body and thus she should be able to do with it as is most convenient for her.
In general, politicians resist relinquishing their ability to intrude in peoples' lives, but liberals reject the idea that the smallest possible government is the best government. What would it take to change their minds about that?
What would it take to convince liberals that everybody is not responsible for the lives of everybody else? At what point will they understand that there is a significant place in society for individual responsibility?
Conservatives believe that if a person is unable to fend for him/herself due to physical limitations, lack of mental acuity or some other handicap, then they deserve to be helped. We also believe that if a person WILL NOT fend for him/herself when fully able to do so, society has no obligation to fend for him/her.
It is appalling to hear an American citizen joyfully proclaim, "I don't gotta worry no more about food and gas prices. We done got Obama an he's gonna fix it for us."
What will it take to convince liberals that there is a valid difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome?
In a school room of 25 children, 5 blacks, 4 Hispanics, 3 Asians and 13 white, when the teacher puts on the board 2 + 2 = 4, every child in that room has an equal opportunity to learn that, regardless of color. What they do with the information is not the responsibility of the government.
In the past, many people who had to struggle to get an education because of poverty, life circumstances and the like STILL managed to learn and succeed, in spite of their life condition.
What is there today that would prevent them from doing so, other than the growing indoctrination by the government that everybody else owes them something?
So I ask, what would it take to convince a liberal that they have been thinking wrongly about a particular issue and what would it take to change their minds?
37 comments:
I am not going to even try to pretend to be a Psychologists but I think the answer has to be so complex to be able to understand the mind of a liberal. It's something like we have never dealt with before in the history of the world.
Liberals recently like to call themselves “progressives”, because they know that the term Liberal has become a word that describes someone who is loathed and ugly, and I must add, rightly so.
Trying to "Change the Liberal mind" is impossible.
Get into a debate with one of these imbeciles and all the response you will hear are the old Blame it on George Bush crap, over and over, never a real response to anything that you might say.
Or you may hear.
Sarah Palin is stupid.
George Bush is stupid and evil.
Barack Obama is doing the best he can with the mess he inherited from the evil and stupid George Bush.
Healthcare should be free for everyone.
Rich people should pay more taxes.
Fox News is biased. Also stupid and evil.
White Republicans are Racist's!
You get the picture.
Can you win an argument with those replies? No, so I just roll my eyes and say “Oh my goodness, aren’t you just the cutest thing with your little lefty socialist ignorant view!”. Then I pat them on the head and walk away saying to myself, "Boy do they need help"
By the way Joe,I love the way you get your point across. Thank you.
PS. Isn’t it so adorable how liberals/Progressives attack you when they disagree with you!
APOI: " Isn’t it so adorable how liberals/Progressives attack you when they disagree with you!"
It's really the most intelligent response they have.
As an example, if you are a liberal, what would it take to convince you that government has gone beyond reason, and certainly beyond the anticipated scope envisioned by the framers, when it comes to the influence government should have in citizens' lives?
-----------
What would it take? Nothing !
I already believe government is out of control. I believe laissez-faire capitalism and representative democracy are incompatible.
I don't really care what the founding oligarchs thought. The system can be bought with just a couple of judges and a few Senators in your pocket. It's a joke.
But I'm certainly not going to try for any discussion with someone who thinks Sarah Palin isn't a bug eyed loon or uses Fox News as his exclusive news source.
I disagree with Pissed Off Irishman in his characterization of the answer to your question, Joe: he says it will be 'complex.'
Nope. Not complicated at all. The answer to your question, 'what will it take to convince a liberal that their philosophy is wrong,' (I paraphrase here)? is exceptionally simple and straight forward.
Defeating them in the public square, via the ballot box, and marginalizing their philosophy. And if they do not accept their political defeat and they take to the streets to further their liberal agenda, then other types of defeat will be employed. This is only way to save our society from the evil that is liberalism.
Much like Ghengis Khan would ponder, 'what will it take for the Uighurs to abide by Mongol ways?'
We all know what Ghengis ended up doing in answer to his question, and it worked out pretty well (for Ghengis, that is).
Favorite quote from Ghengis: "The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters."
What will it take to convince liberals that there is a valid difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome?
---------------------
Then why stop working for equal opportunity?
Healthcare should be free for everyone.
-------
Who believes that Mr. Potato head?
he health insurance system should be non profit but care isn't going to be free.
It's amazing how stupid Fox has made you. Was it difficult?
Listen to Fredd, the second amendment pussy boy.
You must have been a real mover and shaker for the Reich.
Ducky: "... thinks Sarah Palin isn't a bug eyed loon or uses Fox News as his exclusive news source."
Well, I don't think she's a bug-eyed loon and I don't listen to Fox news, 'cause I can't get it (don't have cable).
Does that mean no more discussions with you?
Fredd: I fear you may be absolutely right.
Duck: "Then why stop working for equal opportunity?"
Conservatives strive for equal opportunity. Liberals insist on equal outcome.
eg: Everybody has the opportunity to go to college...everybody. Regardless of color or ethnic background the process is the same: you work, save, work, save and study, study, study and then go on a scholarship plus savings (that's how I did it in 1960...imagine that).
Now, if you sit in that classroom and sleep or shoot spit-wads all day long, you probably will not get to go to college. That's your choice.
News Flash!
Sarah Palin Isn't the president of the United States, the Clown known as Barack Hussein Obama IS!
And by the way, If the "New Black Panthers" changed their names to "white-panthers" do you think "Eric the Idiot" would investigate them for the Wanted Dead or Alive bounty?
When I heard earlier today that special prosecutor Angela Corey, a ditzy looking female with a little girl’s voice, was charging him in the death of Trayvon Martin, I guess I thought it would be at worst manslaughter. But murder? Given the fact that the main eyewitness at the scene said Martin was on top of Zimmerman hitting him, and that Zimmerman shot Martin from close range in the chest, and that the police said that Zimmerman had a broken nose and an injury to his head, all indicating at the very least a fight between the two men, not to mention self-defense by Zimmerman, what possible evidence paattern shows murder—unless Corey accepts the official black and liberal narrative that Zimmerman tracked down Martin and shot him dead?
A commentator on Channel 5 in New York said something interesting. The reason Corey chose not to call a grand jury was that the grand jury might decline to indict Zimmerman, and she was set on indicting him.
TDDW: "...do you think "Eric the Idiot" would investigate them for the Wanted Dead or Alive bounty?"
Not a chance! Holder probably organized the bounty.
Larry: What has happened is that we have substituted mob rule for a representative democracy.
The smallest possible government is the best government.
Even if it's totally ineffective?
How would we know we have the "smallest possible"?
Maybe we just take it on faith that keeping the Muslims in line is the sufficient purpose of government?
No I don't think the right wing has completely thought this out or maybe like Fredd they think that the robber barons and child labor represented the golden age.
How do we know we have the "least possible"? What are your practical measures?
Debonair Dude is so "scared of the dark" (like most second amendment pussy boys) that a handful of lunatics who don't get any press except on Fox and call themselves the whatever are a real going concern.
Question for Debonair, what happens when a Banger blows your face off, says you were threatening and then gets of because of the "stand your ground" statute?
Just curious to find out if you've thought all this through with the same depth you've used to analyze government.
I have to wonder what "Schumky Here" was smoking when he wrote that comment.
And by the way Schmuckster, why are liberals like you sucking my oxygen?
Good question Joe, I agree !00 percent.. Just look at all the rhetoric being spewed by the lizard brain liberals right here on this comment page.
Obama like most liberals are a bunch of of a lying,unqualified, dysfunctional, dishonest people. We need to vote this jerk out ASAP.
Nothing short of a religious experience will change the Liberal mind.
That is something we should be praying for.
Ducky: The smallest possible government would be the one that:
1. UNITES the states and their people;
2. ESTABLISHES justice;
3. INSURES the peace (domestic tranquility);
4. PROVIDES for the common defense;
5. PROMOTES (not provides) the general welfare;
6. SECURES the blessings of LIBERTY to us and our descendents.
Once it has done those things, it need do NOTHING else; no DOE; no HUD; no IRS (really! it's not needed), no anything else.
Not helpful, Joe. That does nothing to describe the size and scope necessary to perform those functions.
I was studying some of Lewis Hines' child labor photos and I wondered if the right would have consider child labor laws an necessity or a restraint on profits.
"Card room gentleman,
Weave room ladies,
Can't keep up with the
spinnin' room babies."
Maybe Sturmbahnfuhrer Fredd can check in on this one.
At any rate we can say with a reasonable certainty that we have progressive elements in our society not the right to thank for a lot of progress.
"But I'm certainly not going to try for any discussion with someone who thinks Sarah Palin isn't a bug eyed loon or uses Fox News as his exclusive news source"
Point made
To answer ALL your questions, it would take an open mind -- something liberals simply do not possess.
LR: You're the only one who got the exact right answer.
What the hell could possibly go wrong with is clown called Barack Obama?
The Lone Ranger got that right when he said that "it would take an open mind -- something liberals simply do not possess."
I have learned a long time ago that it is impossible to convince a liberal of the truth, but I will never give up trying.
I honestly believe they are highly misinformed and to quick to follow without, contemplating, pondering or questioning the actions of the people they blindly follow.
Hee, hee, hee, It looks as if I'm getting under Ducky Boy's skin, he's leaving comment on my blog with dirty words.. I guess his Mama failed to teach him good manners . She should have punished him for talking like that.
These Leftists always take it a step too far. But this time their hate filled nasty mouths are for once working in our favor.
Actually Joe, what you should be asking yourself is, how can left and right communicate?
Positions have become so hardened that we talk over each other and it becomes nothing but noise.
Myself, I believe that the religious right is so conditioned to believe in a static revealed truth that they extend religious faith (and belief) into areas where it really doesn't belong.
The most dangerous is their belief in America as an exceptional nation. It encourages a lot of mischief.
But you somehow know what leftists believe without really analyzing the matter and then congratulate yourself when you agree with the pithy stupidity of the likes of the Lone Ranger and his rules about liberals.
Wasted time.
Oh, and remember this, faith is not a guarantee.
FUCK YOU DUCKY!
but liberals reject the idea that the smallest possible government is the best government.
"Smallest" and "best" are nebulous terms in the context of governments. I reject meaningless bromides.
What would it take to change their minds about that?
Define "smallest" and "best" then give me some evidence that it is true. Can you give me an example of this "best" govt?
5. PROMOTES (not provides) the general welfare;
I thought you were a strict follower of the Constitution. Why do you reject what is clearly written in it? Article I, Section 8,
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
Provide for both the common defense and general welfare.
it would take an open mind -- something liberals simply do not possess.
Joe or Lone. What have I, a liberal, been closed minded about? Be specific.
How can you liberals even expect Obama to run the country when he can't even keep his personal guards under control? He goes to Latin America and his protection takes out their ding-dongs to impress the local ladies. And why were they fired? They were only supporting the local "working women" And why didn't Hilary Rosen come to the defense of these "working women"?
I want to know the breakdown of how many were black, women, white women, and Hispanic women?
Another ZipperGate?
Joe, darth bacon used a really bad word.
Listen you pathetic little Obama slave!
If I wanted to say anything to you, I wouldn't hide behind the name Anonymous.
I don't write anything that I wouldn't put my name to, let alone use an Anonymous moniker.
And if I wanted to, I'd make up a name like Robert De Niro or anything more imaginative then Anonymous!
And why are you even on here on this conservative blog, all you do is insult people . Im guessing. You are the nerdiest guy on your block. You probably haven't any friends besides online. So you try to bully people everyday… If I'm wrong well then I'm wrong, but I doubt it.. But why else would post allover the blog world like you do and only on blogs where you are not liked and not wanted. Just like your Messiah and Hero's Obama, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-Il and Vladimir Putin..
Anyway, I'm outahere, it's Saturday night, time for the Happy People like me to go out in the world and have fun.
Have a good time by yourself.
From Mirriam Webster: close-minded: obstinately resistant to argument or to unfamiliar or unwelcome ideas.
If that isn't a description of liberals, I don't know what is.
Lone, I'll ask again, what have I, a liberal, been closed minded about? Be specific. You've called liberals closed minded twice. If you can't answer the question you either don't have an example, or you're obstinately resistant to argument and unfamiliar with unwelcome ideas.
Joe, I'm a little worried. That obscenity has been sitting there 2 days. You OK?
Joe, I'm a little worried also.
You didn't put up your usual Sunday post.
Whats going on?
Yeah, not like Joe to miss a Sunday post.
Hope it's nothing significant, Joe.
Post a Comment