One Liberal Blogger

Doug goes off on another of his barely coherent rants. I'm going to rebut the whole thing, so this will be long.

He begins by quoting Tom DeLay's "book". I will accept the DeLay quotes as given as I really don't have time to research each claim.

"Because of the power of Conservative ideas. . . the following is true:

Every American now pays lower federal income taxes
Twenty-five million taxpayers receive a child tax credit
Thirty million married couples pay less in taxes, because of marriage penalty relief

And the federal deficit is at record levels, and Americans have to pay a much larger burden then under the Clinton administration. See below the chart on the "Cost of Government".

Every serviceman/woman in America is better equipped and better paid

And being refused permission to leave the military via "stop loss" programs, as well as having tours of duty lengthened. Their treatment at DoD hospitals is a travesty.

The U.S. Intelligence Community has more spy satellites and more agents, and operates in more nations, than ever before in the nation's history

And still the Monkey-in-Chief ignores PDB's entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S."

Some 2.3 million former welfare recipients have jobs; 3.5 million fewer families live in poverty; and 2.9 million fewer children live in poverty as a result of welfare reform

That's meaningless without context. What period of time is defined by DeLay's statistics?

Referencing the US Government's own statistics, you can see for yourself the percentage of "working poor". And here for children living in poverty. You'll see that there were fewer children living in poverty in 1969, first year data is available, then there are today.

What any of that means in regard to "conservative ideas" is to make ridiculous assumptions.

Some 17 million seniors over the age of sixty-five now have prescription drug insurance coverage they never had before

This is exactly the sort of "entitlement" that the loons normally rail about. However, it is worth noting that the entire program is basically one giant government subsidy of the pharmaceutical industry.

Every American can set aside tax-free money for unexpected health expenses

Which is probably a losing bet for most people. You don't get that money back if you don't spend it. In addition, premiums for health insurance have increased by 73% since 2000.

The way the loons talk about taxes, you'd think they would prefer that all taxes be done away with. Hey.. they don't seem to care about deficits, so why not?

Partial-birth abortion, the practice of partially taking a child out of a woman's womb and then murdering it, is now illegal

Notice the terms "child" and "murder". It's also worth noting that PBA is something of a myth, in any case.

The federal criminal appeals process has been streamlined, and the processes of prosecuting death penalty cases and carrying out a death sentence has sped up.

Including the up-coming execution of a man in Georgia who is quite possibly innocent.

In opposition of the above items, the Liberal Left:

Believes that everyone should pay higher federal income taxes so that they can pay for their social programs.

Like the "Prescription Drug Benefit"? LOL

Actually, liberals think the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans should be rolled back. We also think that deficit spending is a bad idea. The fact is, spending has exploded under Bush and the Republican Congress, far surpassing "liberals" such as Clinton or Carter.

thinks that children cause additional carbon footprints and would rather institute a child tax penalty

That's a blatant lie.

believe that marriage is a silly little ritual and married couples receiving any tax advantage is unfair to unmarried couples anyway and they would then reinstate the marriage penalty tax

Actually, liberals think "marriage" is an important civil right that should be available to anyone - not just the heteros. The rest of the blather about taxes is just.. well, blather..

will, as Clinton and Carter did, downgrade and gut the American military, reducing our Navy to dangerously low levels while expanding military commitments, but rarely in an effort to protect national security. The expanded military commitments will be to use the U.S. military as a kind of glorified Peace Corps in situations that do not place American interest at risk, or by spreading humanitarian aid to murderous dictators and sponsors of genocide as Clinton did in Kosovo and Somalia, among other situations

More blather.. but it's true that Clinton did not start wars of occupation based on false premises, bogging down the military in Vietnam II.

Speaking of aiding murderous dictators and sponsors of genocide;

will strip the U.S. Intelligence Community of their abilities to spy on the enemy, claiming that the very operation of an intelligence agency is in opposition of the ACLU and what they stand for (aaaargh!)

If you mean by "strip" - following the Constitution, then yes. Refer to the Moyers program, and the conservative point of view. I agree with them.

thinks that you and I are not able to take care of ourselves (self-reliance bad!) and will increase the number of welfare recipients by making it easier to qualify and make welfare a lifestyle. Poverty will increase, and the successful will be penalized for it, being required "share the wealth" with people who refuse to work and refuse to be self-reliant

That's a nice straw man you set up there. Of course, his own son is a "welfare recipient" who quite literally could have died if not treated for cancer. Apparently he wasn't "self-reliant", and should have been left to the devices of natural selection. I certainly wouldn't want to see that, but "conservatives" think that saving a person in need is some sort of "wealth redistribution".

Doug probably thinks his son was one of the "good welfare recipients" and not one of the slackers who doesn't deserve it. I'd be interested in how he thinks the social workers should be able to tell the difference, and make that determination when deciding who gets to live and who dies.

will ensure that our older citizens will die sooner by enacting a socialized medicine program which will increase the waiting times for treatment as it has in Canada and Europe - so many of our elderly will simply die before receiving the care they so desperately need that they would have received sooner had the system remained under privatized medicine - and tax rates will remain high well into their later years to help pay for the socialized medical system - kicking the amount we pay in taxes to pay for the system that is inferior to nearly as much as we were paying for a superior privatized system

Naturally, the Europeans (#7) and Canadians (#13) have a longer life expectancy than Americans (#45), according to the CIA. In addition, the World Health Organization ranks France #1, Canada (#30) ahead of the United States (#37) in quality of health care.

I've also explained many times why a single-payer government run system would be far cheaper. The US spends far more money per person than any other nation on the planet for a lower quality of care.

make abortion legal at all points of a pregnancy and will find themselves and their socialized medical system overwhelmed by medical emergencies resulting from the abortions as well as needing to wash more often in an attempt to get the blood of millions of babies off their hands

Abortion already IS legal. Duh.

will outlaw the death penalty and lighten the penalties on most crimes, especially non-violent crimes.

Yep, that's true. Most non-violent crimes are drug related and are costing us a huge amount of money in the legal and penal system. It's a complete waste.

Did you happen to see the story of the 17 year old kid that's serving 10 years in a penitentiary for having consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend? When I was that age, pretty much everyone I knew would have ended up in prison if subjected to the same sort of "justice".

Meanwhile.. the loons think Scooter's punishment was too harsh.

Now, for part 2 of Doug's screed, he does his usual straw man attacks. I'm going to "unpack" it, as Sully would say.

If one studies the viewpoints of today's liberalism, and the games they play, it becomes apparent that Liberalism is simply an early stage of Communism.

Is Doug claiming that he "studies" liberalism? I find that ironic considering he constantly mischaracterizes it, won't allow any liberal points of view in his blog comments, and will not directly quote anything I write. That's why I call him a "liar" - because he is exactly that.

Liberal viewpoints have nothing to do with communism what-so-ever. We do favor a progressive tax system as a means of having a viable middle class in this country.

Liberalism, like socialism and communism, believes that it must destroy the existing system in order to place their system in control.

That's yet another lie. We're working within the current system to elect Democratic candidates. We're working to get solid progressives elected to office. The '06 elections are a nice example of how that's working out. A San Fransisco liberal is Speaker of the House of Representatives for god's sake. The '08 elections will be even better.

And rather than being an example of doing what is best for the citizens and practicing the values of doing what is right, Liberalism pursues power.

Liberals are, by definition, advocates for the poor, the minorities and the disenfranchised.

To reach that power, like Communism, they must destroy all obstacles that stand in the way by removing the message of the opposition, and by silencing the messengers.

That's simply a non sequitor. In fact, having a "conservative" spokesman as president has helped the liberal cause immeasurably. I encourage him to keep talking at every opportunity.

In their minds, to oppose Liberalism does not make you a person that has an opinion other than theirs. Instead, in the eyes of Liberalism, it makes you a narrow-minded Bush-bot who will be persecuted relentlessly by the Leftist Elite.

Doug constantly uses a classic propaganda technique of arguing against an ideal, and not an idea. In other words, he rants about the "liberal agenda" but rarely mentions the agenda except to mischaracterize it in broad themes. That's why he won't debate me on the issues. He knows I'll make him look like a fool, which I would indeed do, not because of some "trickery" but because of the logical conclusions that a normal person would draw from such a debate.

I do tend to characterize "conservatives" in broad themes. Those themes are well documented, and I do not mischaracterize their viewpoints. In fact, I highlight their viewpoints, word for word, as I am doing in this post.

Or as one liberal blogger puts it, opposing their viewpoint makes you a f***ing moron, vile Christian, a f***ing liar, a right-wing freak, authoritarian cult of the Christian right wing in America, and so on and so on and so on.

That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Doug, I don't call you a "fucking liar" because you "oppose my viewpoints" I call you a fucking liar because you're a fucking liar.

Let me drill this down for you in simple terms. In that one statement of yours that I just quoted above, you make a claim. You mischaracterize my point of view, and you are not quoting me. You are making up your own version of what I've said, and then you attack it, when in fact it completely misreprents my point.

That makes you a fucking liar. Get it? Is that crystal clear for you?

It is not your opposing my viewpoints that lead me to those conclusions, it is what you claim ARE your viewpoints, and what you write. There's no other simple way I can clarify that for you. You should edit your post and change that paragraph now that I've explained to you why I call you a fucking liar. I know you won't do that - you will allow the lie to stand - because you're a fucking liar.

And round and round that topic goes.

Of course they overlook the fact that the Left is populated by hypocrites, and anti-American traitors.

And once again, Doug calls millions of Americans "traitors". Fuck you Doug.

I also seem to recall Doug taking me to task for referencing "left wing" sources. Notice, all Doug links to is "Newsmax" and "Townhall", which aren't even pretending to be news sites. They are right wing propaganda outlets.

I very rarely source factual assertions via left leaning sites. Doug lives and breaths the loon-o-sphere.

Of course, when Conservatives say something that makes a little sense, the Left loves to quote us in an attempt to debunk it using age-old methods that includes conveniently misreading what we say or removing key elements so that the text can be construed as something different. And then they proudly proclaim that they have done nothing wrong, and are simply using our words against us.

You make very "little sense" Doug. That is why I quote you so often. I'm not misreading, you're just a shitty writer with a particular inability to articulate your point of view.

And - once again you're a fucking liar - I do NOT remove "key elements". I fucking quote your shit, make you look like a tool, and then move on.

You don't seem to understand that's how this process works. Reference any noteworthy (left or right) blog and you will see people quoting each other and making arguments. You don't do it, because you're a fucking liar that likes to mischaracterize what another person is saying.. and then you have the fucking GALL to claim I'm "misreading" or "removing elements" of your writing when you don't even bother to attempt to quote in context?

If you want to know why I call you a "fucking moron" - examples like that are a particularly good one. In your warped mind, it's perfectly okay for you to paraphrase my view and argue against things I've never even said, without quoting or sourcing anything at all.. and somehow I'm using some nefarious "age-old method" to describe how insane you are by highlighting your own words?

Jesus Christ.. what a fucking moron!

Finally, Doug asks some questions for "liberals". I find that highly ironic because he will not allow the answers to the questions he asks be posted anywhere near his blog - either in posts or in comments. Why the fuck would he even bother to ask the questions? In any case, I'll answer them.

I'd be totally fucking shocked it he quotes my responses to questions he has asked on his blog.

Well, personally, I am tired of the games the Left plays. So, I will close with a few items that gets them all up in an uproar, and ask them a few questions about it.

Hey Liberals, Answer this:

1. If someone threatens to kill you, should you seek the approval of your friends before you take measures to protect yourself? And if you take such measures to protect yourself on the advancing foe, is it a war-mongering attitude to hit back once the aggressor smacks you square in the face and is reaching for a weapon?

Should one seek permission to defend oneself? No.
If one takes measures and strikes back after being struck, is that "war-mongering"? No.

Now, because the real world is a bit more nuanced then the simplistic scenario Doug describes, I will elaborate on the apparent analogy he's attempting to draw. Doug is obviously trying to create a simple self-defense analogy to that of moving hundreds of thousands of men-at-arms into a war with another sovereign nation, i.e. Iraq.

Doug's analogy fails because Iraq was not "threatening" our nation. They did not have any WMD's. They were not an "imminent threat". In reference to Doug's analogy, suppose it was "Bob" that is the "aggressor". It would be a mistake to "hit back" at "Bill" for what "Bob" has done. It would be better to gather allies and go after "Bob".

Liberals firmly supported removing the Taliban from Afghanistan and wanted Bin Laden's head on a platter. Neither has happened. The Taliban is still a regional force, reorganized and aggressive, and Bin Laden is still at large. Invading Iraq has been a huge mistake where the resources could have been better used in Afghanistan.

2. Since God is simply a delusion to the majority of the far left, who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see? Or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?

The answer is - neither. The question is poorly worded.

It is impossible, by definition, for an atheist to be "offended by a God". However, an atheist can be offended by people who are claiming to be acting for God.

It's difficult to discern the analogy that Doug is trying to create with that question. Who is "more irrational"? By framing the question in that way, Doug is saying that both are "irrational" to some degree, but wants to know which is more so. I'm having a hard time figuring out what his point is with that one.

I will say that Doug is lying when he claims that "God is simply a delusion to the majority of the far left". He references no sources for that claim, which is his habit. Personally, I do think there is a "God" - however, Doug believes that the only God is the biblical God and so he assumes that my being Deist means that I do not believe in "God".

That's what I mean when I said an atheist can be offended by people claiming to be acting for "God". The recent Papal pronouncement that "Catholicism" is the only true religion is a perfect example. I am offended that the Pope would claim that only Catholics chose the right religion.

3. Would you be angry if your neighbors trashed their house, then moved into yours and claimed it was theirs in the first place, and that they had more of a right to your home, food, and yard than you did?

Yes, I would be angry if that happened.

I assume that Doug is attempting to draw an analogy to immigration - specifically Mexican immigrants. By wording the question as he has done, Doug is classifying all Mexican immigrants in the same "messy neighbor" model. As he has shown, time and again, he is simplifying a complex subject and is, in fact, being quite racist while he's doing it... assuming, of course, that his question is an analogy to Mexican immigrants.

Not all Mexican immigrants are messy and want to claim my house as theirs. Not all immigrants from other nations are perfect. It's a big mish-mash of people who are trying to create a better life for their families. There's nothing wrong with that. Each is an individual human being, and should be judged by their actions as individuals. Simply classifying them as "messy Mexicans" is racist. If his analogy is not to "messy Mexican immigrants", then I have no idea what the hell his point is.

However, liberals do NOT favor open borders. We do NOT think it's okay to simply immigrate illegally. We support expanding the number of legal immigrants as well as recognizing there are thousands of productive members of society that are here, paying taxes, and it does no-one any good to break up families and deport them.

4. Would it be okay if you worked hard in school, earned an "A" in your class, and then the teacher said that your good grade ,which was achieved by your hard work, is unfair to the student in the back of the class who has turned in no homework and refuses to take tests and has an "F", so to be fair, your grade will be redistributed so that you both receive "C's"?

No, that would not be okay to do that.

The analogy that Doug is attempting to draw, I think, is to "welfare". Once again, he is over-simplifying a complex subject with an inane supposition.

The decision that any society has to make is the degree to which we show compassion to the less fortunate. Whether you believe Jesus was "divine" or not, I think we can agree he was an advocate for the poor. I find it ironic that today's Christians have flipped that message on it's head.

If Doug's question had been "Is it fair for the government to tax some of your income in order to provide assistence to the needy?" - my answer would have been YES.

Again, how ironic that his own son's life my have been saved by "wealth redistribution". If I were a tax payer in California, I'd be proud to know that a sliver of my income helped contribute towards that, just like I'm proud to know that it does in Texas.

It is fair that that those that are more fortunate financially contribute more than someone who has less to spare and needs what little income they have to get something to eat, or try and keep a roof over the head of a family. Imagine a flat tax where each person pays the same amount. The wealthiest would see a huge decrease in their taxes and the poor would be ruined.

5. Would it be okay, since you want the fairness doctrine so bad, that on all of the CNN Shows, and MSNBC shows, and PBS, and so forth that Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (and so on) co-host with each of those hosts so that the conservative view is also given?

That's another inane question. It's well known that "conservative" commentators are far more represented in the main-stream media than "liberal" commentators. I assume this analogy is to the "fairness doctrine".

It's important to note there is a difference between "news" and "commentary". The personalities that Doug refers to are not "journalists". They offer commentary. There are equivalents (I think superior) on the left as well. The "fairness doctrine" would simply ensure an equal balance in the polical spectrum for commentary, and inhereintly there's nothing wrong with that. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with the current system, however I can see frustration when one side is presented exclusively, ala Fox News.

NBC might have Keith Olbermann, but they also have Tucker Carlson. What does Fox have? A wimpy Alan Colmes. I've heard Colmes' radio program and he's far more effective then the back seat he takes to Sean Hannity every day.

So, instead of the inane question that Doug asks, what he should have asked is this; "Should the FCC enforce equal time for political commentary?" I would probably answer that question as a "no" - but I can see why other's would disagree, especially if the imbalance in ideological viewpoints was very great.

I don't understand why Doug couldn't simply ask for liberal viewpoints on the issues of the day instead of trying to makes some silly point by tarting the questions up to a degree that that the analogy he's trying to draw falls flat on it's face.

I guess if he had simply asked the question straight, he would be inviting a "debate" and we can't have that.. now can we? Did it seem like your silly questions got me in an "uproar" Doug? I rather enjoyed it to be honest.

Any other questions that I can clarify for you? It would be nice for your "studies" of liberal philosophy because you are quite clearly failing the test if your constant mischaracterizations are any standard.

Please, I'd be happy to answer anything in the hopes that you'll stop lying.