[Spliffdaddy]

This article shook me up pretty bad. I'm on record as saying I believe people are inherently good. While I *do* believe it - I mean it in a general sense. I don't believe that ALL people are inherently good. I DO believe that people can achieve goodness, no matter where they begin their journey.

There's lots of truth in these words. It'll hurt you if you're liberal, and it'll hurt you if you're conservative.

It ain't often that I'm so moved by words.

-----------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/d...20030812.shtml

Why do people hold liberal-left positions? (Liberal and left were once very different, but not anymore.)

This question has plagued me because I have long believed that most people, liberal or conservative, mean well. Very few people wake up in the morning planning to harm society. Yet, many liberal positions -- I emphasize liberal positions rather than liberals because most people who call themselves liberal do not hold most contemporary liberal positions -- have been wreaking havoc on America and the world.

How, then, can decent and often very smart people hold liberal positions?

There are many reasons, but the two greatest may be naivete and narcissism. Each alone causes problems, but when combined in the same person, they are particularly destructive.

At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook.

A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing, them. "Negotiate with Saddam," "Negotiate with the Soviets," "War never solves anything," "Think peace," "Visualize peace" -- the liberal mind is filled with naive cliches about how to deal with evil.

Indeed, the very use of the word "evil" greatly disturbs liberals. It shakes up their child-like views of the world, that everybody is at heart a decent person who is either misunderstood or led to do unfortunate things by outside forces.

"Child-like" is operative. The further left you go, the less you like growing up. That is one reason so many professors are on the left. Never leaving school from kindergarten through adulthood enables one to avoid becoming a mature adult. It is no wonder a liberal professor has recently argued that children should have the vote. He knows in his heart that he is not really an adult, so why should he and not a chronologic child be allowed to vote?

The second major source of modern liberalism is narcissism, the unhealthy preoccupation with oneself and one's feelings. We live in the Age of Narcissism. As a result of unprecedented affluence and luxury, preoccupation with one's psychological state, and a hedonistic culture, much of the West, America included, has become almost entirely feelings-directed.

That is one reason "feelings" and "compassion" are two of the most often used liberal terms. "Character" is no longer a liberal word because it implies self-restraint. "Good and evil" are not liberal words either as they imply a moral standard beyond one's feelings. In assessing what position to take on moral or social questions, the liberal asks him or herself, "How do I feel about it?" or "How do I show the most compassion?" not "What is right?" or "What is wrong?" For the liberal, right and wrong are dismissed as unknowable, and every person chooses his or her own morality.

A good example of liberal narcissism is the liberal position on abortion. For the liberal, the worth of a human fetus, whether it is allowed to live or to be extinguished, is entirely based on the feelings of the mother. If the mother wants to give birth, the fetus is of incomparable worth; if the mother doesn't, the fetus has the value of a decayed tooth.

There are not many antidotes to this lethal combination of naivete and narcissism. Both are very comfortable states compared to growing up and confronting evil, and compared to making one's feelings subservient to a higher standard. And comfortable people don't like to be made uncomfortable.

Hence the liberal attempt to either erase the Judeo-Christian code or at least remove its influence from public life. Nothing could provide a better example of contemporary liberalism than the liberal battle to remove the Ten Commandments from all public places. Liberals want suggestions, not commandments.

[BlackGriffen]

Is that flaimbait I smell?

BG

[Spliffdaddy]

told ya it would hurt.

[olePigeon]

It's in the political forum, of course it's falim bait.

Hating gays and voting for loonies who think they're appointed by God makes a Conservative.

[Spliffdaddy]

you saw yourself in those words, too, huh pigeon?

I'm big enough to admit I saw myself there. And I consider myself a conservative.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
told ya it would hurt.

What's supposed to hurt about it? Distill it for me, spliff. I skimmed it, and found nothing of substance.

Did it disturb you that you might have something in common with liberals? That's what the first part of your post makes it sound like.

BG

[Spliffdaddy]

oh yeah. It disturbed me quite a lot.

It means I'm not totally conservative.

[olePigeon]

I'm not affiliated with any political party, nor do I condesend to associate myself with any of them. They're almost all self serving. I was just emulating the author in not so many words.

[Spliffdaddy]

'Liberal' and 'conservative' are not political parties - they're mindsets.

"Liberal" is not another word for "Democrat".


I didn't post the article in order to tweak Democrats. I don't care what party affiliation you may have.

The comments, so far, show every indication that some direct hits were scored. Kinda transparent, anticipated, and expected.

[villalobos]

The naivety here is to believe in Evil and Good, and wanting to be the White Knight. That was good enough for the Middle Age and the Crusade time. We have evolved. Nothing much of interest in this article really.

villa

[CD Hanks]

Interesting article.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by villalobos:
The naivety here is to believe in Evil and Good, and wanting to be the White Knight. That was good enough for the Middle Age and the Crusade time. We have evolved.

/nuff said

[hyteckit]

Haha... didn't realize Dennis Prager is such an idiot. Haha... that's the funniest **** I've read in a while. The article is nothing more than flamebait and lacks any sensible argument or intelligence. It's no different from people writing an article about "Why Macs suck and only idiots use them" or "Why White race is superior and all other races to be slaughter."

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The term ‘liberal’ has been bastardized to death, thanks to modern day leftists. No wonder people run screaming from the term.

He should ‘search and replace’ every instance of the word ‘liberal’ with ‘left wing wacko.’

The modern day butchering of the term shouldn’t be confused with ‘classic liberals’ of old. I've known quite a few 'classic' liberals that want nothing to do with the paranoid, conspiratorial, robotically-P.C, America-bashing, far-left f-wits that have hi-jacked and ruined the term ‘liberal’.

So in the context of strictly modern day ‘left wing wackos’ he does have some valid points.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
The term ‘liberal’ has been bastardized to death, thanks to modern day leftists.

no, actually it's been basterdized and helplessly overused by the right to describe anybody who doesn't blindly follow the neoconservative, social darwinistic/religio-fascist agenda.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
no, actually it's been basterdized and helplessly overused by the right to describe anybody who doen't blindly follow the neoconservative, social darwinistic/religio-fascist agenda.

Never-the-less, he pegs 'left wing wackos' dead on. (Especially ala naiveté and narcissism.)

He even halfway makes the point in his opening paragraph about 'left' vs. 'liberal'.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Never-the-less, he pegs 'left wing wackos' dead on.

funny, you call these people "wackos", but you don't seem to address the issues at hand. i wonder why?

"liberal", just like conservative, is only a word to describe a set of ideas. i see nothing wrong with the "ideals" the author has described. these kinds of attitudes don't require anybody to follow them (unlike the religio-fascist agenda, which actually tries to blackmail people into participating).

is there any merit in the kind of ritualized "self-restraint" (actually self-hatred) which is so evidently manifested in the "personal responsibility" fetish of modern conservativism? no, just look at the catholic church to see where this kind of thinking takes you. in western societies this kind of thinking is manifested more and more in the "false attribution error" - one of the pillars of social darwinism.

if you ask me, i'll take a little "naiveté and narcissism" over a completely medieval and fascist world-view any day. even though i'm NOT a liberal.

[angaq0k]

Oh how I love when people try to fit others in very little box. Looking for best fit when it is actually impossible to fit people in molds...

How about every human being looked at like a unique set of characteristics?

How about taking people at face value in the moment we look at them, instead of marking them with a point of view that should last forever, generalized to the past, the future, or any circumstances, because it is convenient for our beliefs?

People are changing, all the time. We tag for our convenience, but it is no different than wearing deforming glasses and ignoring that these are interfering with reality...

[Nicko]

I think alot depends on what country you come from. I'm Canadian and a liberal, but I wouldn't nessessarily consider the US democrats liberals.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Nicko:
I think alot depends on what country you come from. I'm Canadian and a liberal, but I wouldn't nessessarily consider the US democrats liberals.

in europe a "liberal" is actually a "conservative" (by the american definition of the term).

[Spliffdaddy]

lots of things are backwards in Europe.

or was that your point?

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
lots of things are backwards in Europe.

or was that your point?

lol. no, actually not. i am not thinking backwards as in "having your sister as your wife backwards" as is common in some parts of the us.

i was thinking more in terms of definition. in europe liberal means "small govt., less social programs, less taxes, supply and demand social darwinism etc.". come to think of it it's actually more like " L ibertarianism", because the religious aspect really isn't there.

[doctorkeyser]

"Dearest Jesus who got thy skinny woodworker ass kicked for us, who turns into bread wafers every Sunday, and who leads thy retards through the fields, please show me the way. I was indoctrinated to thy will when my parents carted me off to church when I was too young to speak. Then thy freaky congregation made me realize how difficult it can be not to be 'part of the club,' so one day I woke up and realized I had been saved. Thanks be to you for thy Holy Peer Pressure. Take care, Jesus. I have to go watch some more TNN. Thanks for allowing Americans to forget about that whole separation of church and state thing. What were those founding fathers thinking anyway?"

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
'Liberal' and 'conservative' are not political parties - they're mindsets.

Yes, however, in the context of this editorial it is obvious what the author is pointing to; a generalization of liberal, left, and Democrat (indicated by the second sentence.) He/she doesn't say Democrat, but it's assumed. I'm somewhere in the middle.

(liberals) have been wreaking havoc on America and the world.

And we all know Conservatism support for free trade, world market, and complete disregard for natural surroundings is just what everyone needs.

Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook.

Individuals are held responsible for their crimes, regardless of background. The punishment, however, can be amended or lessened with consideration of the afore mentioned. A woman who kills her father because he brutally raped her should still be held on manslaughter charges, but definitely not murder. If there was not consideration for the circumstances, every single person with a confirmed kill in the military would be on death row.

Indeed, the very use of the word "evil" greatly disturbs liberals. It shakes up their child-like views of the world, that everybody is at heart a decent person who is either misunderstood or led to do unfortunate things by outside forces.

Err, wait a minute. I thought that was a Christian belief, that everyone is born without sin? (save for original sin, depending on your cult.) That would usually be associated with conservative. Considering that homosexuality is a genetic disorder, and being gay is "evil," that would mean people are born evil. Doesn't that directly contradict being born without sin? And speaking of which, why in God's great Earth would he make people evil by nature?

"Child-like" is operative. The further left you go, the less you like growing up. That is one reason so many professors are on the left. Never leaving school from kindergarten through adulthood enables one to avoid becoming a mature adult. It is no wonder a liberal professor has recently argued that children should have the vote. He knows in his heart that he is not really an adult, so why should he and not a chronologic child be allowed to vote?

A (one) "professor" thinks children should vote. Although, I don't know who he/she is talking about. Of course we all know that a single person is an example of everyone. Personally, I think calling professors "child-like" is ridiculous. To dedicate yourself to the pursuit of learning and passing that knowledge to a another generation is probably one of the most noble things to do, and certainly is no indication of being "child-like." Being a mentor, a teacher, is one of the most "adult" things to do. Every try to work with someone with special needs? It's like being a single parent 24/7 for 50 "kids."

That is one reason "feelings" and "compassion" are two of the most often used liberal terms. "Character" is no longer a liberal word because it implies self-restraint.

Who didn't want to wait for U.N. sanctions?

"Good and evil" are not liberal words either as they imply a moral standard beyond one's feelings. In assessing what position to take on moral or social questions, the liberal asks him or herself, "How do I feel about it?" or "How do I show the most compassion?" not "What is right?" or "What is wrong?" For the liberal, right and wrong are dismissed as unknowable, and every person chooses his or her own morality.

Right and wrong are objective, that's why it's stupid to assume you know better. You have to be the most ignorant and self-involved person to know what is right and what is wrong, then to tell everyone that what they are doing is right or wrong. That would explain why conservative Christians would rather see every gay man and women burned and tortured for an eternity because what they're doing is wrong... no compassion for them as human beings. It's right and wrong, nothing else.

A good example of liberal narcissism is the liberal position on abortion. For the liberal, the worth of a human fetus, whether it is allowed to live or to be extinguished, is entirely based on the feelings of the mother. If the mother wants to give birth, the fetus is of incomparable worth; if the mother doesn't, the fetus has the value of a decayed tooth.

Probably the worst example considering there is no direct definition of at what point the fetus should be considered a fetus. There are also way too many variables. Women who are raped, are too young, fetus is malformed, addicted to drugs, etc. It's ridiculous to tell a 14-year-old girl to have a child at the expense of her own life, after she was raped by her father. But maybe I'm being too compassionate, and not doing what's "right." F*ck it, kill the b*tch and let the baby live.

Hence the liberal attempt to either erase the Judeo-Christian code or at least remove its influence from public life. Nothing could provide a better example of contemporary liberalism than the liberal battle to remove the Ten Commandments from all public places. Liberals want suggestions, not commandments.

First of all, no one is trying remove the Ten Commandments from all public places. Secondly, the place that it is asking to be removed, was put there by a conservative Christian. Some people do not believe it's a proper place to put them. If someone put the 9 Satanic Statements or the 11 Satanic Rules in front of that court house, people would be up in arms! They'd tare it down without even going to court.

[fireside]

Originally Posted by olePigeon:
First of all, no one is trying remove the Ten Commandments from all public places. Secondly, the place that it is asking to be removed, was put there by a conservative Christian. Some people do not believe it's a proper place to put them.

sorry to be off topic, but whats this about? its rather vague and i don't really know what you're talking about; it would be interesting to know exactly what you're talking about.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by fireside:
sorry to be off topic, but whats this about? its rather vague and i don't really know what you're talking about; it would be interesting to know exactly what you're talking about.

There was a court house in Alabama where Chief Justice Roy Moore put up a statue with a book that had the ten commandments written on it. It's a government building, and having the statue out there was too close to imposing religion. They might as well have put a nativity scene. The judge (Moore) was ordered to remove it from the building, but he refused. The 9 member judicial court ruled unanimously to have it removed. Moore refused to remove it, so they removed Moore and the statue.

The author blames it on liberals, yet this happened in Alabama, a state that's about as conservative as you can get. This is the only instance I'm aware of and it certainly didn't happen "everywhere."

[fireside]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
There was a court house in Alabama where Chief Justice Roy Moore put up a statue with a book that had the ten commandments written on it. It's a government building, and having the statue out there was too close to imposing religion. They might as well have put a nativity scene. The judge (Moore) was ordered to remove it from the building, but he refused. The 9 member judicial court ruled unanimously to have it removed. Moore refused to remove it, so they removed Moore and the statue.

The author blames it on liberals, yet this happened in Alabama, a state that's about as conservative as you can get. This is the only instance I'm aware of and it certainly didn't happen "everywhere."

heh. thanks.

[pathogen]

Let me breakdown this argumentative and quasi-pedantic rant:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/d...20030812.shtml

"Why do people hold liberal-left positions? (Liberal and left were once very different, but not anymore.)"

Liberal and left are still very different, but I guess you get more mileage in an attack by asserting that liberals are communists and by extension against freedom (reminder: liberty is the root of the word liberal, equating with freedom, and not ironically).

"This question has plagued me because I have long believed that most people, liberal or conservative, mean well. Very few people wake up in the morning planning to harm society. Yet, many liberal positions -- I emphasize liberal positions rather than liberals because most people who call themselves liberal do not hold most contemporary liberal positions -- have been wreaking havoc on America and the world."

The "liberals do not hold liberal positions" argument is essentially a blanket reassertion of the old "liberals are wishy-washy, only see grey. etc" comedy routine that is a nice way to write off something in an ad-hom attack, especially when you end the paragraph by maintaining that liberals are ruining the world. This is the first real sign that the logic will be dramatically skewed towards ignoring actual liberal philosophy and instead positing a fictitious straw dog liberal who represents everything an american should be afraid of.

"How, then, can decent and often very smart people hold liberal positions?

There are many reasons, but the two greatest may be naivete and narcissism. Each alone causes problems, but when combined in the same person, they are particularly destructive."

The funny thing is you must be pretty bullet proof to argue that a whole political philosphy is naive and narcissistic, or at least have the public respect and intellectual accumen to present yourself as an arbitor of what is naive and narcissistic, because if you're wrong, you yourself would be pretty naive and narcissistic. I think that's actually the case here, because the last I heard, this person hadn't exactly been chosen "smartest guy ever".

"At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook."

Most liberals, Noam Chomsky to Gandhi, JFK to John Kerry, reasserted again and again that their core belief is that people owe it to the world to do good for eachother. I have no idea where this "people are good" thing came from, but it's not true and he presents no evidence for it as being a liberal core belief... he's just pulling this out of the air.

"A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing, them. "Negotiate with Saddam," "Negotiate with the Soviets," "War never solves anything," "Think peace," "Visualize peace" -- the liberal mind is filled with naive cliches about how to deal with evil."

If the first posit is true, that people are good, then this paragraph might make sense. But the first posit wasn't true. So what I see here is an excuse to reassert that liberals don't support american troops, are ungrateful for our military advantages and for the toppling of dictatorships, etc. This is a nice way to demonize people as unpatriotic during a particularly stressful time in the nation's history vis-a-vis terrorism threats.

"Indeed, the very use of the word "evil" greatly disturbs liberals. It shakes up their child-like views of the world, that everybody is at heart a decent person who is either misunderstood or led to do unfortunate things by outside forces."

And so we are introduced to the core of the name calling ritual in debating: your opponent is immature, and thusly you are more mature and right.

'"Child-like" is operative. The further left you go, the less you like growing up. That is one reason so many professors are on the left. Never leaving school from kindergarten through adulthood enables one to avoid becoming a mature adult. It is no wonder a liberal professor has recently argued that children should have the vote. He knows in his heart that he is not really an adult, so why should he and not a chronologic child be allowed to vote?"

So scholarly ambition is a narcissistic attempt to hide away from responsibility and growing up? Well, it also takes a lot of hard work, talent, perseverance, and intelligence, on top of being a highly comeptetive career and not very lucrative (scholars have to earn a living, too). But let's disregard all those things to justify that smart people can't be liberal without being deeply flawed humans? To quote O'Reilly: "I'm not buying it."

"The second major source of modern liberalism is narcissism, the unhealthy preoccupation with oneself and one's feelings. We live in the Age of Narcissism. As a result of unprecedented affluence and luxury, preoccupation with one's psychological state, and a hedonistic culture, much of the West, America included, has become almost entirely feelings-directed."

The biggest overconsumption orgy in the history of the world has its precedence on the big countries harnessing the little countries to do the dirty work. Most liberals aren't going to justify the primo location in this orgy (as the top of the heap) by being touchy-feely, they're going to accuse conservatives of being selfish, greedy, and of having of little self-restraint - because it's mostly a conservative effort to protect the orgy.

"That is one reason "feelings" and "compassion" are two of the most often used liberal terms. "Character" is no longer a liberal word because it implies self-restraint. "Good and evil" are not liberal words either as they imply a moral standard beyond one's feelings. In assessing what position to take on moral or social questions, the liberal asks him or herself, "How do I feel about it?" or "How do I show the most compassion?" not "What is right?" or "What is wrong?" For the liberal, right and wrong are dismissed as unknowable, and every person chooses his or her own morality."

That last sentence is probably the smartest thing in this essay, but it's used as a derogatory attack. Rather than there being multiple points of view, multiple perspectives, there is for this person just one: the conservative right perspective. Little things like cultural relativism and freedom of thought are swept aside.

"A good example of liberal narcissism is the liberal position on abortion. For the liberal, the worth of a human fetus, whether it is allowed to live or to be extinguished, is entirely based on the feelings of the mother. If the mother wants to give birth, the fetus is of incomparable worth; if the mother doesn't, the fetus has the value of a decayed tooth."

Yes, every mother who's had an abortion believed her fetus to have the worth of a decayed tooth. What a lovely syllogism. It perfectly captures how abortionists are evil incarnate and unsympathetic... especially if they are liberal and believe people are inherently good and are touchy feely? Sorry, the arguments don't match. Contrarily, maybe the freedom to choose what happens to your body and the life you generate is the ultimate conservative expression of freedom. Except that it displeases God, so God is all for freedom, up to a point. Just like Tom Ridge.

"There are not many antidotes to this lethal combination of naivete and narcissism. Both are very comfortable states compared to growing up and confronting evil, and compared to making one's feelings subservient to a higher standard. And comfortable people don't like to be made uncomfortable."

The "higher standard" antidote is moral relativism, which is as closed-minded (a clue of naivete/narcissism) as it gets, folks.

"Hence the liberal attempt to either erase the Judeo-Christian code or at least remove its influence from public life. Nothing could provide a better example of contemporary liberalism than the liberal battle to remove the Ten Commandments from all public places. Liberals want suggestions, not commandments."

Where did that last argument come from? Oh, yes. Athiests are bad. Anyone against the one true God is bad. We're at war with the muslim extremists, so a defacto straw dog is that anyone who isn't conservative must be equated with the contemporary Godless enemy (communists, germans, yankees, the british, the royalists, the catholics, and backwards and backwards...). Hurray for such a brilliant rant! Goes up there with my all time favorites. To poop on.

[Spliffdaddy]

heh. That long-winded divel was, quite obviously, the result of a direct hit on a liberal.

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
heh. That long-winded divel was, quite obviously, the result of a direct hit on a liberal.

Try as I might, I cannot find a definition of "divel" that would make sense in the sentence you were trying to construct. As an independent voter, am I to infer that you are a retarded victim of genetic trisomy, or perhaps, that all "conservatives" are, too? Thrill us with your acumen.

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
heh. That long-winded divel was, quite obviously, the result of a direct hit on a liberal.

Actually, like me, he seems more insulted by the idiocy of the rant than the arguments there in. I, too, get upset that sh*t like that masquerades as informative discourse and people like you buy it. It was a good breakdown of the rant - you should go back and read it, spliff. Unless you're confused by rhetorical terms like "ad hom." and "straw dog" (which is a colloquial version of "straw man" fallacy), then I suggest reading up first.

[pathogen]

Originally posted by AB^2=BCxAC:
Actually, like me, he seems more insulted by the idiocy of the rant than the arguments there in. I, too, get upset that sh*t like that masquerades as informative discourse and people like you buy it. It was a good breakdown of the rant - you should go back and read it, spliff. Unless you're confused by rhetorical terms like "ad hom." and "straw dog" (which is a colloquial version of "straw man" fallacy), then I suggest reading up first.

Yeah, I should have said straw man instead of straw dogs, because I doubt anyone else got the analogy to the pacino movie.

[olePigeon]

pathogen, Guns N' Roses kick ass!

[Sven G]

"Child-like" is operative. The further left you go, the less you like growing up. That is one reason so many professors are on the left. Never leaving school from kindergarten through adulthood enables one to avoid becoming a mature adult. It is no wonder a liberal professor has recently argued that children should have the vote. He knows in his heart that he is not really an adult, so why should he and not a chronologic child be allowed to vote?

That must be one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard: it only shows that the author has never had a fulfilling childhood, if anything.

Vote? Deeply "liberal" (in its widest meaning) people don't concentrate so much on voting - they rather try (as far as humanly possible in the current historical context) to make some positive and constructive direct action, in order to improve individuals and society.

Anyway, the author evidently seems to hate children - and, so, also himself, as an ex-child who never was able to integrate his various stages of evolution into something constructive.

IMHO, of course...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by villalobos:
The naivety here is to believe in Evil and Good,

I really don't know what to say.

If there is a right and wrong, which there is. There is a evil and good.

They are both the same.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I really don't know what to say.

If there is a right and wrong, which there is. There is a evil and good.

They are both the same.

Evil, wrong, and good, right (respctively) are most certainly not the same. Killing someone during war or in needed desperation may be the right thing to do, but it's certainly not a good thing to do.

[itai195]

Sorry, but I find the article rather naive. The characterization of liberals as naive and narcissistic is just as ludicrous as characterizing conservatives as greedy conformists. Sorry, but this article strikes me as just a thinly veiled attempt to sling the same old stereotypes toward liberals: don't we already know they're just a bunch of rich, self-absorbed intellectuals and atheists? It's getting a little old

Just to pick at one point -- the author often characterizes liberals as believing in the goodness of all people. I'd say that to an extent, that's theoretically true within 'liberal' philosophy. Our founding fathers believed in it too, it's essentially a concept lifted from the philosophy of John Locke. But in the US, the characterization of good vs evil is largely anachronistic to the left. Conservatives still seem to cling to it, as evidenced by the language in the article. But the left would cringe at the concepts underlying the Bush Doctrine, for example, not because we don't believe people have the capacity for evil, but because we recognize that human nature is much more complex.