Skip to main content

"The problem with 'liberals' is they are ALL victims...or HAVE to MAKE everyone a victim."

Someone of 'authority' actually said that to me last week.  Not only did they say it to ME...they literally stood in front of me (a female), a gay male, and another woman in her 60s with a disabled husband and spoke to the 3 of us like we were 4 year old's.

This 'person' knows each of us well.  This 'person' knows our background and lifestyles.  This person KNEW who they were talking to.

'Liberals are always the victim.  And if THEY aren't the victim...they make everyone out to be a victim.  Or create clusters of victims.  Groups of them.  "Binders Full Of Them." I'm paraphrasing here...but you get the picture.  This person continued to 'open mouth insert foot' and say..."You know...the Women...and the Gays...and the Abused...and those on Food Stamps...and in debt...they're all victims."  

This is when each one of our mouths dropped open - as this person - continued on.

The rant continued on with Public Education VS Charter School Options - which is a hot topic presently where I live.  Rape and Abuse and making them a 'bigger deal than it needs to be'.  Equal Pay for Women.  Social Treatment of those with 'non-traditional' lifestyles, choices, ideas, politics, families, education, financial standing, religious points-of-view, and much more.

Again...the more this person spoke...the more the 3 of us just starred at them.

Did we act like mice and back up into a corner?  No.  Did we lose our cool?  No.  Did we laugh at them?  YES.  Outloud.  Infront of them.  "Why are you laughing at me?" They asked.

Because that's the only response it deserved.  I mean, what else COULD we do?

Just when we thought it couldn't get worse...

This person continued on to say "When Romney WINS...you'll see the stock market turn around!  IMMEDIATELY!  Within MINUTES.  You'll see companies start hiring more and more people.  Everything will turn around - YOU'LL SEE!"

One of the three of us said..."Oh!  Does that mean you'll start hiring?" to which they responded..."well, ah...no, but..."

YEAH.  That's what I thought!

So...who's the victim?  Who CREATES a victim?  The victim themselves?  

Does a rape victim asked to be raped?  A battered wife asked to be beaten?  An employee asked for their insurance to be taken away or their boss to fire them for no-reason? Does a female ask for a lower pay for doing the same or more work that her male co-workers?  Does a person ask to be ridiculed or tormented based on their sexual preference, religion, social class, or political party affiliation? I could go on and on.

Who MAKES these victims?  After this whole situation - from last week - I think my answer is people who are oblivious and think 'all liberals are victims or make everyone a victim.'  THOSE are the people that make them victims.  THOSE are people who make 'liberals' LIBERAL.  

(At least THIS Liberal).  

Well excuse me for speaking my mind.  Excuse me for standing up for those who do not have a voice.  Excuse me for caring for and about others...and not just myself.

Apparently YOU don't care about anyone BUT yourself (and your pocketbook).  

Better yet...NO...don't EXCUSE ME...because there is NO EXCUSE FOR YOU!

Originally posted to jennifervents on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:53 AM PST.

Also republished by Feminism, Pro-Feminism, Womanism: Feminist Issues, Ideas, & Activism, Political Language and Messaging, and Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Woooo! (17+ / 0-)

    That's about right....and righteous!

    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

    by kestrel9000 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:01:03 AM PST

  •  It is long past time (36+ / 0-)

    to take back the word "liberal" from the republican scrap heap of "dirty words".

    Liberal needs to be redefined by liberals to be a strong word, one loaded with all the connotations of strength, support for everyone's dreams, doing the right thing, moving the country forward and at the forefront of new technologies, new concern for the environment, new ways of looking at old problems to make sure they are solved.

    If we continue to accept liberal as a dirty word like Reagan said so long ago, we deserve all the dirty words thrown our way. And this is the one of many things that made me want to leave the Democratic Party.

    Grow some (whatever you want to put here) and stand up for America, for what you believe in and what will actually move the country forward. Don't accept any more Republican lies about how they are willing to work with Democrats. They ARE NOT WILLING  to work with anyone who will not toe their line and kowtow to the current or future Norquist.

    Stand up liberals, and state your liberal beliefs. Be proud that you believe in the future, you believe in the ability of America to work for all Americans (not just the rich) and you believe that if we really do work together, we can solve our problems.

    We are not dividing the country, the Republicans are. We are not holding the American dream hostage, the Republicans are. We are not ignoring global problems and rewarding those who ignore them, the Republicans are. Make Republican a dirty word!

    I reject your reality and substitute my own - Adam Savage

    by woolibaar on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:16:35 AM PST

    •  So what is the definition of 'liberal'? (nt) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FloridaSNMOM

      Those who support banning cocaine are no better than those who support banning cheeseburgers

      by EthrDemon on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:48:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's rather like pornography (4+ / 0-)

        "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"

        YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

        by raincrow on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:15:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not proposing this as a definition (4+ / 0-)

        but more as a descriptive statement:

        A modern liberal is someone who agrees with the philosophical argument that there is not a clear distinction between positive and negative rights.

        "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

        by kyril on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:35:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FloridaSNMOM

          The way I see those criticisms framed strikes me as a conservative viewpoint.  In fact the whole essence of the argument against the ACA is that any alleged right to health care doesn't create a corresponding right to take anyone else's property to pay for it.  (Basically the example in the last paragraph.)

          Those who support banning cocaine are no better than those who support banning cheeseburgers

          by EthrDemon on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:50:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, it's actually a deeply liberal viewpont (9+ / 0-)

            You really need the whole background of the positive/negative rights thing.

            Basically, in order for a 'right' to exist in a meaningful sense, there must also be a corresponding duty imposed on other people to respect that right. For instance, if I have a moral right to life, then other people have (at a minimum) a moral duty not to kill me.

            The first human rights identified were phrased as rights to do things: life, free speech, free association, and free exercise of religion. So the corresponding moral duties were understood to be simply the duty not to interfere with an individual's exercise of his rights. A duty not to do something is a negative duty.

            Conservatives of the time objected to the idea of universal rights in general, but over time, the liberal viewpoint gradually became dominant in the West. Modern Western conservatives generally recognize the older set of rights.

            But liberal philosophers didn't stop in the 18th century. Somewhere around the beginning of the 20th century, people began proposing that there were universal human rights to things like food, water, health care, and education.  These couldn't be readily explained in terms of negative duties.

            Modern conservative philosophers invented the "negative/positive rights" dichotomy to explain why they differentiated these newer proposed rights, which were mostly economic, from the older social/political rights.

            The idea, in essence, is that if a proposed right comes with a positive duty attached, then it's a positive right. And a positive right isn't a real moral right at all, because it imposes a positive duty on other people to do something, which denies those other people's right to freedom of choice in some respect. People who make this argument often make comparisons to forced labor.

            The liberal response is as follows:

            Most rights, including the older rights which are claimed to be purely 'negative', actually do come with positive duties attached. For instance, your right to vote implies that somebody has a duty to provide ballots, count your vote, and respect the result. My right to life implies that others have a moral duty to protect me from being killed and to try to save my life if I am dying.

            Meanwhile, most rights that are claimed to be 'positive' can be rephrased in a way that makes them 'negative'. The wiki entry gives some decent examples here.

            Thus, there is no real distinction between positive and negative rights; both generally come with both positive and negative duties attached, and both can be framed as either positive or negative. The conservative argument fails to draw the unambiguous qualitative distinction it needs to draw in order to support keeping the older social and political rights and discarding the newer mostly-economic rights.

            "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

            by kyril on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:36:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  A number of conservative thinkers have tried (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wbr

              to read into the Constitution a set of economic rights that are not there. The only references to the economy are in the parts where the patent right is established and Congress is given the right to control interstate commerce. And to provide for the general welfare. There is no mention of free markets or capitalism, no provision for a type of economy. If Congress were to decide that in order to provide for the general welfare it could regulate anything it deemed necessary a plain reading of the text would support that.

              Of course the conservatives on this court have found ways around a plain reading.

              •  "Economic rights" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kyril

                according to conservatives and libertarians can be translated as "privileges of property". They don't actually believe in human rights or civil rights of any sort.

                •  Not exactly (0+ / 0-)

                  Libertarians do believe in some civil rights, they just don't accept that they trump property rights.

                  Those who support banning cocaine are no better than those who support banning cheeseburgers

                  by EthrDemon on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 07:40:41 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But their is no firm definition of economic rights (0+ / 0-)

                    in the Constitution. Which would sort of imply that they are subordinate to the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

                    •  Right (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      kyril

                      But the Bill of Rights is AOK with most libertarians, because things like freedom of speech or freedom of association don't have a cost attached.

                      Where you start to see daylight between liberals and libertarians is when you expand "rights" to include things like health care or clean water, which someone else is compelled to provide or pay for.

                      Those who support banning cocaine are no better than those who support banning cheeseburgers

                      by EthrDemon on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 09:42:00 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Look the constitution does not specify (0+ / 0-)

                        what economic system we us in this country. It just guarantees that you get just compensation if the government seizes your property. And due process at the same time. It does not mandate a free market. Or restrain the government from engaging in economic activity. Or ban any type of commercial regulation. Those are matters for the legislature. You can be compelled to pay taxes. Like it or not. And these taxes may be used as the legislature and executive see fit. If you believe having to help provide clean water is a violation of your rights go ahead. But you are still compelled. And it is constitutional.

                        I am sure you and other like minded people can go buy some land and declare yourself independent from the rest of us. But if it is on US soil you are bound by US law.

      •  well... (8+ / 0-)

        there are a lot of (valid) definitions of liberal, but I'm guessing that the one being discussed here is something like this:

        a belief in social justice and that the legitimate role of the state includes addressing issues such as unemployment, health care, education, and the expansion of civil rights
        The definition also usually includes implications of open-mindedness and the acceptance that differing views exist and should be considered.

        Here's a nice quote on the subject from a significant person in American history:

        "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality." 

-- George Washington
        •  Social justice. (9+ / 0-)

          It's funny, but this morning I asked myself why I vote democratic year after year after year, and I decided that social justice was the one issue most important to me. It's what gets me out there doing what I can in my own very small way.

          I wanted to say a lot more, but it's all very small and personal and boring. Suffice to say that I have some very close relatives who are perfectly fine with the idea that bad things may happen to poor people with no jobs or health insurance because they should have made better choices in life. There seems to be no argument I can make against this sort of attitude, and frankly, it fills me with despair, because there are all too many people who feel this way, and that there have always been. Having said that I'm a heck of a lot happier that we re-elected Obama.

        •  That's a super quote! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jennifervents

          I always thought that open-mindedness & acceptance were defining traits of a liberal.

          ...inspiration moves me brightly

          by wbr on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:59:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  We say "liberal" because... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        EthrDemon, quill, fuzzyguy

        ...in American political discourse, you can't say "social democrat".

        Procrastination: Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

        by Linnaeus on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:48:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I call myself Democratic Socialist, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy, XenuLives

          and use that label during discussing politics. When asked what that means, I tell them to look up Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and like him, I caucus with the Democrats, because enough of us have not came out of the closet yet.

          Severely Socialist

          by ichibon on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:11:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Liberal: lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl) ~ definition: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sidnora, wbr

        lib·er·al  (lbr-l, lbrl)
        adj.
        1.
        a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
        b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
        c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
        d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
        2.
        a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
        b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

        Goodbye American Dream.... http://youtu.be/ZkTIEeGX6q0

        by Fireshadow on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:45:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  conservative needs to framed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raina, AaronInSanDiego, elginblt

      as greedy and stingy.

      GOP = Grifter's Only Party

      by Paddy999 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:34:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  That is why I came to the epiphany earlier this (12+ / 0-)

    week. The republican party has become the party of regression. That may be why it is so favored by old folks (I am 60 but I try to not turn into a snarling yapping fearful little football dog) who are afraid of change... who see their youth not as fine because they were young and full of it (whatever that may be) but as a golden age they want to replicate. Then there are those who do not like certain distinguisable groups and really hate that they might have to compete with them on a level playing field (after all they have spent thier lives garnering favorable treatment that is often undeserved or earned) for goodies. Besides it fulfills the bully in the insecure to have designated targets ... gays, women, minorities, children, .... Of course there are those who truly believe that they are special and don't need anybody else ... that everything in thier world was generated by them...They really believe in the Matrix. Maybe the largest portion of the regressive party is those who cling to whatever fantasies comfort them and help them get through the day liking and admiring themselves after they have abused, manipulated or used other humans in direct contrast to thier stated beliefs which need frequent justifying and tweaking. I mean for petes sake they now talk about editing the Bible because it is too liberal...Hearing voices is another of thier symptoms.

    The hardest thing for the regressive party that used to be republican is that they can't settle for what era they favor best. Back to good old slavery days or perhaps witch burnings or lynchings or maybe to the days of crucifixtion for those who stood against the rulers or maybe some wild west where whoever is fastest and most ruthless can simply kill those who have either something they want or simply irritate them...I think that they have lost thier compass because so many of the very things they adored about the past are now regarded as brutish and passe.  

    How can you tell when Rmoney is lying? His lips are moving. Fear is the Mind Killer

    by boophus on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:26:18 AM PST

  •  Prefer the word "progressive" to the word (5+ / 0-)

    "liberal" actually.  

    Why don't we just stick with "progressive"?

  •  I'd have victimized the prick right there. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil

    with a good swift knee to the balls

    "There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home." John Stuart Mill

    by kuvasz on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:17:42 PM PST

  •  It's a good word. Let's use it with pride! (9+ / 0-)

    Liberal, meaning "left-of-center." From Merriam-Webster online:

    Origin of LIBERAL
    Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber (free); perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
    First Known Use: 14th century
    The political definition refers to the Liberal party in England, which is to the right of where I think DKos in general is, so this source isn't as useful as it could be.

    From the moderatevoice.com here's JFK's definition:

    What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

    -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:24:56 PM PST

  •  I am an old man. I grew up in the Baptist (9+ / 0-)

    church in Texas. I graduated from Baylor University in 1961, it was then the largest Baptist school in the world. I have many friends who are devout Baptists including some ministers that I went to college with--though they are getting fewer as time goes by. Take it from me these Baptists are about as far as one can get from "liberal." But they think of themselves as victims. The whole Southern Baptist theory of everything is based on the idea that the whole world is against them and they are victims who are fighting a mighty battle against the oppressive national government--the Constitutions in other words. Being a victim is a way of life for them.

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

    by hestal on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:32:47 PM PST

  •  How was the stock market going to turn around (7+ / 0-)

    within minutes of Romney winning the Presidency? The stock market was closed for the night when a winner was decided.

    •  Not only that but turning around would be crashing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wbr

      no? I mean the Dow Jones is over 13,000, what does turning around mean in that atmosphere? Crashing, and that is probably correct, but it would have taken some time for the deregulation to kick in before it occurred.

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:07:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Romney (0+ / 0-)

      was going to repeal Obamacare on Day One, and a whole bunch of other stuff, besides. They think that not only do they get their own polls, they get their own time.

      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

      by sidnora on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:40:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Liberal: anything left of Tea Party ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    If not us ... who? If not here ... where? If not now ... when?

    by RUNDOWN on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:02:49 PM PST

  •  Bertrand Russell said, historically, the (8+ / 0-)

    definition of Liberal was; one who allowed that someone of a different religious persuasion was not necessarily to be killed on the spot, or persecuted - that one could be tolerant of other points of view, at least to the point of not starting wars over matters of belief. So, Liberal came to mean something like "generous", in the sense of granting others' the right to have opinions contrary to state or church-mandated orthodoxy.

    Liberalism came out of times when the buying & trading classes were coming into ascendency, over the feudalistic lords who put ancestry & custom over everything - those who manufactured & bought & sold didn't care about your opinions or heraldry, they just wanted to know if you had money. It's ironic that our new feudal lords have got so rich & powerful they have regressed to the rigid class standards of a bygone day - they should by rights be "Liberal", if they're Capitalists & merchants.

    "Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right." - Isaac Asimov

    by greenotron on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:05:45 PM PST

  •  This is why we need to get back to (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, RUNDOWN, Cassandra Waites, katiec

    everyone having dictionaries.  Liberalism is the belief that people should govern themselves in their own interests.

    The "invisible hand" doesn't regulate the market - it wanks it. -- SantaFeMarie

    by Dinclusin on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:07:47 PM PST

  •  The stock market? (5+ / 0-)

    Remind them to check where the market was on Inauguration Day 2009.

    •  Yep, they want to turn it around to get back to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      themank

      those glorious deregulated days when the rich could manipulate crashes, bet against them, and get rich off of the 401K money they stole.

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:08:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Foxipedia ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AaronInSanDiego, ichibon, wbr
    Liberals: Anyone left of Tea Party.

    Communists: Liberals who want to raise taxes.

    Independents: Empty chairs.

    Libertarians: Pot smokers.

    Takers: Those who make less than 250k per year.

    If not us ... who? If not here ... where? If not now ... when?

    by RUNDOWN on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:37:39 PM PST

  •  The only problem with liberals is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kristina40

    blowhard, self-righteous, vile, and cruel repugs who spend all their lives exploiting people.

    If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. ~Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobediance, 1849

    by shigeru on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:48:35 PM PST

  •  if we "turned around the stock market" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    myboo

    to the glory daze of W, we'd take it from 12-13,000 back to 6-7,000.  I don't necessarily believe that the Dow Jones is the be-all & end-all, but the cry baby cons should be aware.  Even tho it's facts and numbers and stuff...

    the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity

    by mailman27 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:35:11 PM PST

  •  The problem with liberals is (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Linnaeus, wbr, jennifervents, RUNDOWN

    there aren't enough of us.

    •  Beat me to it (n/t) (0+ / 0-)

      Procrastination: Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

      by Linnaeus on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:49:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, the problem with liberals is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wbr, jennifervents, NancyK

      there aren't enough people who are liberals and realize it.

      Poll after (unskewed) poll shows that the vast majority of self-identified independents agree with what we here would call liberal positions. It's the name that was made radioactive, not the ideology.

      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

      by sidnora on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:43:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Barbara Obrien said it best: (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catlady62, susanala, wbr, jennifervents, NYmama

    “Righties have no idea what we lefties think, because they never listen to us. They listen to the straw lefties that live in their own heads, and then they explain to each other what we think.”

    "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

    by phastphil40 on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:49:59 PM PST

  •  You just don't understand their pain (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    susanala

    As a liberal - you should have understood that what he really meant to say is that he is being victimized by your victimization. All the stuff you are talking about costs him money so be quiet already because he does not want to hear about it.

    How insensitive can you be?

    -7.5 -7.28, A carrot is as close as a rabbit gets to a diamond.-Don Van Vliet

    by Blueslide on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:07:22 PM PST

  •  yeah, i stopped being courteous to these asshats (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYmama

    a while ago. it was hard letting unfettered ignorance and stupidity go by with no response. i decided that, since i wasn't going to change their minds, i might as well make them pay for being an ass to my face. it feels damn good, actually.

    i love that "kodak" moment, when (some of them) realize they've just been shown to be an idiot, in public. if you're going to insist on believing every nugget of stupid, put out by FOX and limbaugh, then there will be a price to be paid. since i'm a prick to begin with, i have no qualms whatsoever about being the one to extract it from you.

  •  Reminiscent of my reading at Redstate (0+ / 0-)

    it is all in their head.

  •  And this person thinks of himself/herself (0+ / 0-)

    as a paragon of having it all together?

    liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

    by RockyMtnLib on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:13:42 PM PST

  •  We hear this kind of thing a lot (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wbr

    One of my inflexible rules is that if you hear unrelated people make the same point using the same words, the point comes from a propaganda machine.

  •  Liberals just... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYmama

    ...don't ignore the real victims out there.  Republicans ignore the victims or thier self centered greed at all costs lifestyle.  They have to ignore them or say it is thier own fault or the horror of thier actions would eat thier souls.

    Most republicans I know either have a destroyed soul or they are repressing and ingnoring the consequences of thier actions.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:48:40 AM PST

  •  The real problem is ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wbr

    Conveying the message.  Why do republicans have such a horrid plan for the working class but always have a strong showing ? MESSAGE and HOW IT IS DELIVERED !
    Obamacare is great, it is not single payer but if you have a kid or a pre existing condition IT IS AWESOME . When was that mentioned ? AFTER they lost the house of representatives .
    jesus H. Christ, if democrats just said things plainly they would gain much more support.
    Then answering bullshit. This belief that only people who were not white voted for Obama is a lie. By population percentage alone Obama had to get a huge percentage of white voters AND THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED .
    Liberals also need to recognize they have no media voice, democrats do . MSNBC is owned by war profiteers and you can scream all you want, the people who work there do not talk about the war anymore - because it is signing their paycheck.
    We must learn to be more than honest about what we offer, we must also learn to be honest with ourselves . John Kerry has a boring speaking style and having him as a spokesman is a bad idea - and Harry Reid has the charisma of a wet towel and so on. CHARISMA is not evil. Also, Al gore-let us be honest, the truth is not his family made his money from tobacco they made it from Occidental . That admission will go far in getting some change in the energy department. Yes, admit Al Gore comes from oil money and then agree to move forward.
    It is a real simple change.

    you can't remain neutral on a moving train

    by rmfcjr on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:48:17 AM PST

  •  Have you heard the joke (0+ / 0-)

    that everyone's a conservative until someone fucks with them?

    Yeah, liberals.  We're like that.  Because fight back when people try to victimize us.

  •  And we all have welfare Caddilacs (0+ / 0-)


    The problem with talking to conservatives is that they live in the bubble.  They repeat what Rush and Hannity have told them about who we are and how things are.  They have made up their minds.   I try to talk rationally with them and you know what happens?  They dismiss me as a crazy liberal who is wrong about everything.

    Some fun examples of things I've thought and heard.

    Some years ago I once said.  A big difference I see between liberals and conservatives is that they see things as black or white ( unrecognized exceptions...logistic fallacy)  whereas we see things in shades of gray.   A fertilized egg ... booom life begins.  Then I ask wasn't the sperm and egg alive?

    We say, that wealth disparity is causing an economic collapse due to lack of demand from consumers who have little pay or not jobs.   So some reversal of distribution of wealth to the wealthy should occur.

    They say. You want everyone to make the same amount whether they work or not?  

    Did we say that?  No.

    Anyway.. more recently I hear Rush Limbaugh saying that liberals see things in black and white and conservatives see things in shades of gray.

    He does that all the time.  It makes me crazy.  Use projection to turn reality on it's head and create the bizzaro world.  

    So guys..  it's good to see us defining liberals.  I'm sick of hearing opinions from my boss who thinks he knows who I am because Hannity told him what I think.

    Go forth.   Think critically.  Learn the ways to cut the legs from those myths that supposedly define us.

    Prove me wrong and I'll change my mind.

    by willbjett on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:06:12 AM PST

  •  Laughing is the perfect response (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RUNDOWN

    For me, the most important part of this story is the ending--all of you laughing in the blowhard's face! It's my hope that this election has finally exposed the delusional nature of the Republican party, Republican voters and Fox News. I hope that this election provided an Emperor's New Clothes moment for the country and emboldens the media and Democrats to laugh in the Repugs' faces every time they spout off with more nonsense!
    It's way past time for the country to stop taking these clowns seriously.  Mock them! Marginalize them! Shame them for their cluelessness!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site