( foror )
|Pages 1 ~ 2 ~ [ 3 ] ~ 4|
Rich liberals tend to at least feel embarrassed by their wealth and feel compelled to use considerable amounts of it for the benefit of the needy. They give to causes that benefit the
neediest of people, often very far from home, while Conservatives tend to give to "charities" that often benefit themselves and their own families and communities, (churches, libraries, colleges,
art museums), declaring that "charity begins at home".
While Conservatives resent paying taxes that benefit others, liberals willing pay relatively high taxes, so long as the money is used prudently for people who need help.
Like people who may not be planning to ever go to the North Pole in person, liberals at least benefit from knowing where "North" is, i.e. even if they don't always achieve it, they at least know that the ideal is to be just and generous toward the unequal and unfortunate.
And since liberal Christians and Jews honestly admit that they do not believe every verse of the Bible to be literally and unequivocally true, there is nothing hypocritical about them not living according to scripture about which they have doubts.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are often
unashamed of being driven by "the profit motive", which is just greed in disguise.
They work constantly to increase the advantages of the supposedly "hard working" haves, while limiting any benefits that might go to the supposedly lazy "have-nots."
After claiming to believe everything the Bible says to be literally and unequivocally true, Conservatives then quietly ignore whatever doesn't suit their selfish, materialistic, profit-seeking lifestyle. In fact, by insisting that everything in that book is equally inspired by God, they can use whatever they need in a particular situation to argue all kinds of conflicting viewpoints. They use Paul's teaching, for example, to defend beliefs that contradict Jesus. "Conservative Christians" ought to identify themselves as "Conservatives like Paul", since they don't want to be "Liberals Like Christ" .
See LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/ salvation
and LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/ PaulvsAll.html
|Famous Rich Liberals:
(Warren) "Buffett has long been the most trusted CEO in the world." . . . (and the famous investment company that he heads "Berkshire's accounting record remains spotless." (from the 4/15/05 Time magazine article on him). So much for integrity. Buffett is planning to give away most of his enormous wealth to charity, trusting Bill and Melinda Gates to spend his bequests wisely.
Bill Gates, Sr. is leading the effort of a rich liberals to preserve the Estate Tax on the wealthy. Mr. & Mrs. Bill Gates, Jr. were named "Persons of the Year" (along with Bono) in 2006 because of their work on behalf of suffering mankind.
Ted Turner pledged a $ 1,000,000,000 for United Nations programs.
Although old Joseph Kennedy got rich as a Conservative Republican, after becoming a liberal Democrat under FDR, he raised his family to give to their country, and it cost three of their four sons their lives.
|Famous Rich Conservatives:
The Bush dynasty goes back to George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush, whose banking enterprises financed the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich.
The "Christian" Walton Family can't seem to gouge enough money out of the suppliers and employees of its WalMart companies.
Richard Mellon Scaife has funded any number of controversial ultra-Conservative causes, including "the Arkansas Project" to bring down President Clinton.
"While it is difficult to gather demographic information on ideological groups, some studies have been conducted. Liberalism remains most popular among those in academia and liberals commonly tend to be highly educated and relatively affluent. According to recent surveys, between 19% and 26% of the American electorate identify as liberal, versus moderate or conservative. A 2004 study by the Pew Research Center identified 19% of Americans as liberal. According to the study, liberals were the most educated ideological demographic and were tied with the conservative sub-group, the "Enterprisers," for the most affluent group. Of those who identified as liberal, 49% were college graduates and 41% had household incomes exceeding $75,000, compared to 27% and 28% as the national average, respectively.
Liberalism also remains the dominant political ideology in academia, with 72% of full-time faculty identifying as liberal in a 2004 study. The social sciences and humanities were most liberal, whereas business and engineering departments were the most conservative. The high educational attainment and prominence of liberal thought on American campuses can largely be attributed to a correlation between education and ideology. Generally, the more educated a person is, the more likely he or she is to hold liberal beliefs. In the 2000, 2004 and 2006 elections, the vast majority of liberals voted in favor of the Democrats, though liberals may also show support for the Greens."
Of the six U.S. Senators who have been re-elected the most number of years, 5 of the 6 were Democrats, i.e John Stennis of Mississippi, Carl Hayden of Arizona, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina (who was a Democrat the first 10 years of his term),
The following table is taken from a conservative site, showing the kinds of people they don't want to be associated with. We liberals thank them for assembling such a great "honor roll" of liberals (although we might quibble over a few of the entries).
We have been told over and over and over again that America's mainstream media is "controlled by the liberals". When is the last time that we heard this supposedly liberal media publish anything flattering about liberals? The truth is that it takes millions, if not billions of dollars to own important communications media. When has any union, a minority group, advocates for seniors, the handicapped, women, children or the environment had enough money to buy such media? Only very rich individuals and corporations have that kind of money to spend and nine times out of ten such people and entities are very Conservative, not liberal.
One example of the total control Conservatives have is their ability to perpetuate the absurd lie that they, the Conservative owners of the media, are helpless to get their own Conservative views expressed in the media they own! One of the arguments put forward most often by Conservatives to "prove" this absurdity is a survey of Washington journalists that revealed that some 92% of them regularly vote "liberal Democrat". Let's accept that on face value. First of all, all this proves is what these journalists do in the privacy of the voting booth, not what they do in their public broadcasting. Now, if liberals had the ability to write and speak publicly about that very survey, Conservatives would be horrified to see or hear the public being informed that 92% of those who really know what goes on in Washington, those who spend their whole lives watching and investigating politics in the nation's capital, those who have teams of people studying who does what in the nation's capital, almost ALL endorse the Democratic Party in the voting booth, although their jobs require that they keep their personal opinions to themselves –they succeed in doing 99% of the time. Conservatives LOVE the Fox Cable Channel because it is obvious to them how blattantly Conservative the news and commentary is there
Thanks to their almost total control of the Republican Party, their partnership with the wealthy TV "evangelists", and most of the major news outlets (radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, and publishing houses), wealthy conservatives have succeeded in making the "L-word" so bad as to be unmentionable! What we have been told is that liberals are irresponsible "beatnik" types who don't believe in any kind of rule or discipline, that they believe in giving public funds away to poor people for no good reason and with no results, that they are atheistic socialists at heart, etc., etc. When do we ever see or hear liberals getting the chance to defend themselves in the mainstream media? On the one side, there is a constant barrage on radio, and now on television, and in most newspapers of extremely explicit attacks on liberals and praise of everything Conservative. And on the other, there are supposed "liberal" journalists, who may well have liberal views, but who have to watch their every word, out of fear that any actual explicit manifestation of their "liberal bias" show they will be attacked viciously by the right and even lose their jobs.
To get a good, solidly based, well rounded education is to get a "Liberal Arts" education, often certified by the awarding of the prestigious "Bachelor of (Liberal) Arts", "Master of (Liberal) Arts", and finally the "Doctor of Philosophy" degrees. The word "liberal" is held in the highest esteem in the world of higher education. Since there is a great deal of truth in the dictum "Knowledge is power", reading books (the Latin for which is "liber") and getting an education have always empowered those subjugated to others to gain "their liberty". The more they learned, the more power they developed until their oppressors could hold them down no longer. And the result was "equilibrium", another cousin of the word "liberal". Not surprisingly, the richer, and more powerful and more privileged people are the more likely they are to be Conservative. And the more educated people are (except when their education is in certain narrow fields), the more likely they are to be liberal.
For liberals, the ideal is to share knowledge, wealth and power as equally
as possible so that th
ere is an "equilibrium" in society that reduces the likelihood of friction and crime, and enhances everyone's chances to enjoy "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in peace and harmony. Crazy these "liberal" ideas, aren't they?
In the Dred Scott decision, Justice Roger B. Taney, the extremely conservative Chief of an extremely conservative Supreme Court. proclaimed that the Constitution and the nation's legal history offered no suggestion that blacks should have the rights other Americans enjoyed. The laws defined them as property, not people, he insisted, so they couldn't be citizens.
Similarly, Scalia's dissent from June's landmark ruling that invalidated anti-sodomy laws argues that the Constitution and the nation's legal history contained no explicit mention for treating gay people equally –the law could, therefore, provided no fundamental right for gay Americans to engage in the private, intimate relations other Americans take for granted.
This is such an important matter that I devote a separate page to it at NaziHistory&Ideology.html.
"As Richard Drinnon has shown in his book Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian-Hating and Empire Building , America's revered founding fathers were themselves activists in the anti-Indian genocide. George Washington, in 1779, instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack the Iroquois and "lay waste all the settlements around... that the country may not be merely overrun but destroyed," urging the general not to "listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected." Sullivan did as instructed, he reported back, "destroy[ing] everything that contributes to their support" and turning "the whole of that beautiful region, the character of a garden to a scene of drear and sickening desolation." The Indians, this writer said, "were hunted like wild beasts" in a "war of extermination," something Washington approved of since, as he was to say in 1783, the Indians, after all, were little different from wolves, "both being beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape." ( p. 89)
And since the Indians were mere beasts, it followed that there was no cause for moral outrage when it was learned that, among other atrocities, the victorious troops had amused themselves by skinning the bodies of some Indians "from the hips downward, to make boot tops or leggings." For their part, the surviving Indians later referred to Washington by the nickname "Town Destroyer," for it was under his direct orders that at least 28 out of 30 Seneca towns from lake Erie to the Mohawk River had been totally obliterated in a period of less than five years, as had all the towns and villages of the Mohawk, the Onondaga, and the Cayuga. As one of the Iroquois told Washington to his face in 1792: "to this day, when that name is heard, our women look behind them and turn pale, and our children cling close to the necks of their mothers." ( p. 90)
They might well have clung close to the necks of their mothers when other names were mentioned as well –such as Adams or Monroe or Jackson. Or Jefferson, for example, who in 1807 instructed his Secretary of War that any Indians who resisted American expansion into their lands must be met with "the hatchet." "And... if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe," he wrote, "we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi." Continuing: "in war, they will kill some of us;we shall destroy all of them." These were not off remarks, for five years later, in 1812, Jefferson again concluded that white Americans were "obliged" to drive the "backward" Indians "with the beasts of the forests into the Stony Mountains";and one year later still, he added that the American government had no other choice before it than "to pursue [the Indians] to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach." Indeed, Jefferson's writings on Indians are filled with the straightforward assertion that the natives are to be given a simple choice –to be "extirpate[d] from the earth" or to remove themselves out of the Americans' way. ( p. 91)
Had these same words been enunciated by a German leader in 1939, and directed at European Jews, they would be engraved in modern memory. Since they were uttered by one of America's founding fathers, however, the most widely admired of the South's slaveholding philosophers of freedom, they conveniently have become lost to most historians in their insistent celebration of Jefferson's wisdom and humanity.( from American Holocaust, p.119-121 )
Conservatives often respond to criticism of their government with taunts like 'If you don't like it here, why don't you go to . . . ?' The next time Democrats are in charge in America, if Conservatives want to emigrate to some more conservative country to avoid living under what they view as either "socialism" or "communism", they could always move to one of these great places :
Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia,
Singapore, Sierra Leon, or Bosnia.
[ Note: Even the fine countries listed above have embraced some form of "socialized medicine" –which Conservative Americans still believe only their own richest country on earth can't afford ! And although Conservative spokesmen keep insisting that all of the people who live in such countries are unhappy with their universal health care plans, the world has yet to see a single one of these countries go back to any American style for-profit private health care system. ]
When liberals, on the other hand, look for a
left-leaning refuge from Conservative Republican administrations, they have a
choice of any number of the most developed countries in the world !
According to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html the 2005 United Nations "Quality-of-Life" rankings, the best places to live in the world today are :
1. Norway, 2. Iceland, 3. Australia, 4. Luxembourg , 5. Canada, 6. Sweden , 7. Switzerland, 8. Ireland , 9. Belgium , 10. United States, 11. Japan, 12. Netherlands, 13. Finland, 14. Denmark, 15. United Kingdom, 16. France, 17. Austria, 18. Italy, 19. New Zealand, 20. Germany,
Note the changes since George W. Bush has been president:
1) Norway, 2) Sweden, 3) Canada, 4) Belgium, 5) Australia, 6) the US, 7) Iceland, 8) Holland, 9) Japan, 10) Finland, 11) Switzerland, 12) France, 13) Britain, 14) Denmark, 15) Austria, 16) Luxembourg, 17) Germany, 18) Ireland, 19) New Zealand and 20) Italy.
If "Socialism" is so bad, then why are the best places to live decidedly "Socialist" while most of the worst places to live are decidedly "Conservative" ?: And why fall for the Greedy Old Party line and their friends throughout the U S media when they tell you that you should dial 911 or the F.B.I. whenever you hear the words "liberal", "progressive" or "socialist"?
There are any number of similar examples that could be given to show that in so many ways, it's countries that are more liberal or socialist than the U.S.A. that have the best records on the kinds of things in which we should be excelling. Here are more:
We "Liberals Like Christ" have been outnumbered through much of the human history. Here are a few examples to get the ball rolling, but we invite people to send us more examples (with sources, whenever possible) :
Describing this "cultural civil war," Weyrich once said, "It may not be with bullets, and it may not be with rockets and missiles, but it is a war, nonetheless. It is a war of ideology, it's a war of ideas, it's a war about our way of life. And it has to be fought with the same intensity, I think, and dedication as you would fight a shooting war."
Check out http://www.epodunk.com/top10/liberal/index.html
"I cduoln't blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of teh hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to rscheearch taem at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deson't mttaer mcuh in waht oredr the ltteres in a wrod are. Teh olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in teh rghit pclae. Teh rset can be a taotl mses and you can slitl raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Such a cdonition is arpoiatelpy cllaed "Typoglycemia" :)- Amzanig huh? And eyverbdoy tknihs slpelnig is so intpmorat."
|Pages 1 ~ 2 ~ [ 3 ] ~ 4|
The REAL differences between
"Liberal" vs. "Conservative"
There is much more where this came from,
at the cyberspace home of