Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Insanity

Liberals, why do you think you can help people by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves?

Liberals, why do you think you can stay out of financial trouble by spending more than you earn?

Liberals, why do you think you can build character and courage by destroying men’s initiative and independence?

Liberals, why do you think you can establish financial security on borrowed money?

Liberals, why do you think you can further unity in America by inciting class hatred?

Liberals, why do you think you can help the poor by wounding the rich?

Liberals, why do you think you can lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer?

Liberals, why do you think you can strengthen the weak by weakening the strong?

Liberals, why do you think you can bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift?

Liberals, why do you think you can help the “little guy” by degrading “big men?”

Liberals, why do you think you can build up the treasury by spending more money?

Liberals, why do you think you can produce equality by taking from the successful and giving to the lazy?

Liberals, why do you think you can continue doing what we've been doing and expect different results?

Isn't that the definition of insanity?

Oh, yeah…it is. Now I understand.

27 comments:

sue hanes said...

Joe - The definition of insanity applies to Republicans also. Just because you say it is about Liberals doesn't make it so. I think it applies to our government no matter who is in charge.

Joe said...

sh: I did not say it is only about liberals. I merely asked THEM the questions. If conservatives were trying to do those things (doing the same things and expecting different results), I would be asking them, too...and I do.

You're right about the government, though. They are mostly a gang of legal thieves.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Liberals are nuts. I think the book, "Atlas Shrugged" does a good job of pointing out the results of liberal ideology.

Joe said...

GEC: They read it and laugh.

Craig said...

They read it and laugh.

We also laugh at people who read it and find Objectivism to be a sound philosophical ideology.

I think the book, "Atlas Shrugged" does a good job of pointing out the results of liberal ideology.

You don't have to read a cheesy novel that appeals mostly to teenagers, you can see the results in the U.S. from the 1930's to the 70's. You can see it in Canada, the Scandinavian countries and most of western Europe.

You can see, in the real world, what Objectivist, laissez faire capitalist Chicago Boys brought to Chile and other S. American countries. You can see it when Randian Alan Greenspan pushed for deregulating the financial sector because they would self-regulate, presumably in their own self interest. We know how that turned out.

Joe, your depiction of the unemployed and down on their luck as weak, lazy spendthrifts is consistent with Rand's view of altruism being immoral. I'm a little surprised you and Glenn would embrace her philosophy given;

Any philosophy (and that includes all religions) that proposes or supports the existence of god must do so arbitrarily, without evidence and without reason to back it up.

Objectivism simply can't accept this sort of unstable arbitrary and irrational assumption about the universe, to do so would invalidate the very axioms our philosophy is based upon.


Ah well, whatya gonna do.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Craig,
I don't embrace Rand's philosophy. I only read the book last month because I wanted to know what all the fuss was about with this phrase "Who is John Galt."

Yes, I know we can see the results of liberal ideology by looking at all the socialist countries around the world and how screwed up they are. And what the U.S. has become, starting with FDR's abuse of the Constitution, and then the disastrous "War on Poverty" with LBJ's "Great Society," and our rapid downhill slide to economic destruction under Obamanation.

But the book ends up using reduction to the absurd to show class warfare, which is part and parcel of liberal ideology.

By the way, you also confuse capitalism with corporatism. Standard confusion with liberals.

Duckys here said...

Glenn, John Galt is the Libertarian messiah who was able to construct a motor that violated the law of entropy.

But is believing that any more anti-science than the average fringe right winger denying evolution?

I know, you have fossil evidence of man coexisting with dinosaurs.

Duckys here said...

I must say, Glenn, that your vulgar social Darwinism invites the question of just who is your God, Christ of the sermon on the mount or Herbert Spencer.

I await your ignorant explanation.
Sprinkle it with some pithy snippets you picked up on rabies radio.
Who's your favorite, Glenn Beck?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

You don't have to tell me who John Galt was. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? I said I read the book last month.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

And Ducky,

Where in the world do you find ME preaching social Darwinism?!?! That was Adolf Hitler's game.

You sure do jump to a lot of weird conclusions just because I said I read a book which reduces to the absurd the example of what liberal class warfare policies can do.

Joe said...

Craig: "...your depiction of the unemployed and down on their luck as weak, lazy spendthrifts..."

Nothing in my post even hints at that.
But that's the way liberals read. They make things say what they want them to say.

Notice that "weak" and "lazy" are in two different questions. That is because they are unrelated.

"Spendthrift" does not occur in my post.

If I thought liberals could read, I'd ask you what post you were reading.

"...embrace her philosophy..."

Did you just make that leap on faith, or did you actually see something in my post that made you think I have adopted Rand's philosophy.

You really, really don't know how to read, do you?

GEC: The likes of Ducky, XO and Craig just make it up as they go along. They are linguistically challenged and virtually illiterate. Be careful, though. They think they can read your mind.

Duckys here said...

For your consideration, Glenn.

"And deserts—the fact that some people deserve what they have and others do not? That idea never made any sense to Adam Smith, for he saw that the overwhelming bulk of our wealth is our joint product through our collective division of labor, rather than the individual creation of some Randite John Galt, who if truly left to stand alone on his own two feet without the social division of labor would soon have his bones bleaching in some Colorado canyon."

Duckys here said...

Did you just make that leap on faith, or did you actually see something in my post that made you think I have adopted Rand's philosophy.
----
Your whole post is an apologetic for laissez-faire, Joe.

Why do you stand up for the clowns who beat you out of your retirement 401K, Stockholm syndrome?

Xavier Onassis said...

This entire post just proves my point that, for the most part, conservatives are incapable of critical thought.

They are under the ridiculous delusion that complex social problems have simple, black and white answers.

It's either This or it's That.

While your dogmatic,religious faith might define the world in those terms, that in no way reflects reality.

But then, reality isn't really your home turf, is it?

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "And what the U.S. has become, starting with FDR's abuse of the Constitution, and then the disastrous "War on Poverty" with LBJ's "Great Society," and our rapid downhill slide to economic destruction under Obamanation."

You, are insane.

Name me one single instance of the Supreme Court ruling anything that FDR did as unconstitutional.

Because like it or not it is the SCOTUS and ONLY the SCOTUS who gets to decide what is and isn't Constitutional.

Not you.

LBJ's Great Society program has provided a social safety net for millions of hard working, honest Americans that, if you had your way, would be cast to the gutter and left to die due to circumstances beyond their control.

How very Christlike of you.

Thanks to "Obamacare", being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition and children who graduated from college burdened with $30,000 of student loan debt who can't find a job thanks to the fact that Republicans would rather destroy the American economy than be accused of compromising with Democrats, can at least get health care under their parent's plan until they are 26.

But you, in your Christian Compassion, would have none of that.

Old people, poor people, unemployed people, sick people, women and children can all be thrown to the wolves to fend for themselves without any guilt or compassion.

That's your John Galt.

I prefer to work for a more compassionate society where citizens actually care about and provide for their fellow citizens for no other reason than that they are human beings and deserve an inherent level of dignity.

But you wouldn't understand that.

Duckys here said...

Well, yeah, XO, look what the U.S. has become.

Better to go back to the days when old people died in the street.
No pass to Galt's Gulch for those moochers.

Glenn proclaims his devotion to Rand and then gets his knickers twisted when it's insinuated that he advocated social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism where he keeps his government pension.

But what do we know, we're illiterate.

Craig said...

They think they can read your mind.

That's funny, Joe. You just asked, 13 times, "Liberals, why do you think you can...". You presume to know what Liberals think. I don't think any of the things you think I think.

Joe said...

XO: "...While your dogmatic,religious faith..."

Is that akin to your dogmatic atheism?

Craig: If the shoe don't fit, ugly step-sister, don't try to put it on. However, since LBJ's so-called war on poverty (and before), liberals in power have consistently acted as though those were the things they believe. (BTW there are more people, and a greater percentage of Americans, in poverty today than in LBJ's day. Can you say, "Fail?")

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Name me one single instance of the Supreme Court ruling anything that FDR did as unconstitutional.

The socialists FDR stack SCOTUS with would NEVER say what he did was unconstitutional. You know, like putting Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.

Yes, and we all know how SCOTUS judges the constitutionality of abortion - they found that right in the emanations of the penumbra of the Constitution. And of course SCOTUS was on board with slavery. And even though Obama's gang said Obamacare wasn't a tax, in order to get Constitutional justification SCOTUS called it a tax.

And we all know how well modern SCOTUS interprets the 1st Amendment which it comes to freedom of religion. And of course their ruling on DOMA sure wasn't to promote an agenda.

Liberals rely on activist judges rather than the rule of law.

The one who does THAT is the one who is insane.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

DUCKASS

Glenn proclaims his devotion to Rand and then gets his knickers twisted when it's insinuated that he advocated social Darwinism.

Talk about giant leaps to conclusions!! So, I said I was curious about the phrase "Who is John Galt," and therefore last month I read a book by Ayn Rand. The amusing part of the book (and the only worthwhile thing in the book) was the reduction to the absurd argument which demonstrate the results of socialist economic ideology.

And suddenly I am devoted to Ayn Rand and am a social Darwinist!?!?!

You are one helluva FOOL.

And I even stated that I don't embrace Rand's philosophy. Talk about "laissez faire" - that is how Rand's idea of human sexuality is in that book. HORRID morality. Oh, wait a minute - that's the LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE idea of human sexuality. No ties, screw everything you want as long as it satisfies self, "marry" anything you want as long as it satisfies animal urges. Oh, and make sure that someone else pays for your contraception, and if you are irresponsible in your sexual behavior, just murder the child which resulted.

Yep, the destruction of this country has come closer and closer with every "progressive" ideology made into law.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

As America commemorates the 50th anniversary of President Johnson's declaration of war on poverty, we have to consider the one social program we know works: the family. As FRC's Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI) has shown through years of careful research, children and families are better off financially when their homes are headed by a married mom and dad. Not only is a married family less likely to be poor than households headed by a single parent, marriage between single parents of impoverished children would, statistically, immediately move 70% of those boys and girls above the poverty line.
At best, federal social programs have achieved mixed results in the lives of millions of Americans. Failed federal policies, no-fault divorce, and tax disincentives for marriage have resulted in myriad broken lives. Less than half of U.S. children on the cusp of adulthood have grown up in an intact married family. And creating intergenerational dependency on government is not the way to create jobs or offer people hope. But with God, there's always hope for new beginnings. And we know that work, dignity, and hope go hand-in-hand, which is why we support market-oriented, opportunity-based alternatives to federal intervention in the lives of those in need.
Also, if we want a strong economy, a good educational system, and a robust civil society, the federal government must support policies that encourage strong traditional family formation. That's why FRC is so committed to helping strengthen families and supporting policies, like the child tax credit and the charitable deduction, that empower families to thrive both for their own sakes and for the sake of America's future.

Tony Perkins

Duckys here said...

Glenn, I'm fascinated by your ability to turn anything into a critique of sexuality.

I seems to be the cornerstone of your entire world view. Not that the gospels spend much time on it.



Duckys here said...

Glenn, XO asked you to identify rulings that ruled the New Deal unconstitutional.
You failed and I think it's reasonable to reiterate XO's point that SCOTUS, not the Baptist church, determines constitutionality in America.

You bring up the internment of Japanese-Americans in WW II. Clearly a blot on our history but we are not at our best during wartime.
I hesitate to think what bigots like yourself would do to Muslims if you were given the chance.

Also, do you have any comment on Hoover's mass deportation of Hispanics, even American citizens, during the depression as a way to alleviate unemployment? They were uprooted and lost their homes and possessions.
I bring it up because people like yourself are very selective in their understanding of American history and really don't grasp it at all.

Yet they expect to be taken seriously.

Duckys here said...

GLENN'S LOST FILM DISCOVERED

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Duckyass,

You claimed I was devoted to Rand's philosophy. Part of her philosophy is libertine sexuality. ERGO, that is an example of why I cannot accept her philosophy. And then YOU accuse me of turning anything to sexuality.

Well, since libertine, laissez faire sexuality is promoted by liberals/progressives on a 24/7 basis, thrown in our faces by every medium, and certainly is the cornerstone of L/P world view, I wonder why it is we have to defend against such rank immorality?

Sexuality not discussed in the gospels? Try again - if you even so much as LUST sexually, you commit adultery. I wonder who said that?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky

Glenn, XO asked you to identify rulings that ruled the New Deal unconstitutional.
You failed


No, I didn't fail - you are just too stupid to understand my response. DUH. THe point was that no matter how Unconstitutional the New Deal was, no SCOTUS socialist would rule against it. I gave examples of blatantly unconstitutional rulings by SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS no longer adheres to the spirit - or even letter - of Constitutional, and don't even pretend to.

Ah, yes, I am a "bigot" because I tell the truth about Islam and the Muslim world view, while you excuse blatant bigotry as being "not our best in wartime." Standard liberal excuse.

I know my American history very well, thank you. It is "progressives" who like to rewrite it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

"Glenn's Lost Film Discovered."

How childish. How about explaining your point.

Of course we know this is how liberals/socialists/progressives have treated Christians around the world. But what is YOUR point?