Survey Suggests Yes, Liberals Tend to Be Hypocrites on Obama Policies
"Obama cue" affects support on issues ranging from the president's kill list to healthcare.

Last week, Salon's Alex Pareene asked whether liberals really were "being hypocrites about Obama's wars," concluding:
It's true that there are a lot of, shall we say, casually political liberals who decried Bush's wars and then voted for Obama, but regardless of whether you think Obama's civil liberties and foreign policy records are as disastrous or wrongheaded as Bush's, I think the claim that there are a ton of hypocritical progressives defending a Bushian record is overstated. Yes, a lot of quite liberal Californians reelect Dianne Feinstein every six years — but she's always been awful and they've always been doing it. The sad truth is that lots of Americans were and are willing to sacrifice civil liberties for security no matter who's in charge and lots of people pretty consistently underestimate the negative consequences of war, until they're unignorable.
But now a survey highlighted bv Salon's Joan Walsh suggests that, indeed, who's in charge can matter for public opinion on issues as serious as the president's kill list:
In a YouGov poll of 1,000 voters last August, [political scientist Michael] Tesler found significantly more support for targeted killing of suspected terrorists among white "racial liberals" (i.e., those liberal on issues of race) and African Americans when they were told that Obama supported such a policy than when they were not told it was the president's policy. Only 27 percent of white racial liberals in a control group supported the targeted killing policy, but that jumped to 48 percent among such voters who were told Obama had conducted such targeted killings (which Tesler refers to as the "Obama cue.") He found a similar difference among African Americans, but cautions that the sample size, of 60 in a control group and another 60 who were given the "Obama cue," is small. "We can be pretty confident that blacks are more supportive when given the Obama cue, but not at all confident about how precisely large that difference is," he told me via email.
Walsh explains Tesler's use of the term "racial liberals":
The white respondents [to a battery of four questions on race issues] who answer more like African Americans – that is, they believe racial inequality is due to structural barriers, not merely a question of individual effort or merit — are considered more "racially liberal." They're the ones Tesler has found are more pro-Obama, and pro-Obama policies – included targeted killings.
The rest of the article worth the read here.
Reason on drones.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I consider myself quite racially liberal, in that I'm willing, in fact eager, to insert my penis into as many women of different races as possible.
Why should you deprive yourself? What kind of a man does that?
No kidding. Hell, plenty of actual no-shit racists have had, uh, liaisons with women belonging to the "inferior" race.
I'm convinced that a man has to be dysfunctional to not want to fuck everything that moves on some level.
Some women do more for me than others. I don't have the Asian fetish some men do. And black women don't often do it for me. But those are just general preferences. Only a real moron would write off entire races.
They all taste different.
Especially your mom, JJ.
She tastes like lard and failure.
Not all the time. Sometimes she tastes like me.
What? Isn't that the same taste?
Not always! Sometimes I smell like Polygrip and cat pee!
So pepperoni and failure?
Sure. I have a preference list with Hispanics and caucasians around the top of the list and Asians and blacks nearer to the bottom -- but writing off an entire race? Hell, no!
Alicia Keyes would work for me.
Alicia Keyes, Halle Berry -- there are some great looking gals in any race; it'd be downright stupid to deprive yourself.
And Halle Berry has the added bonus of being a total whackjob who loves to do bad boys. I hear fucking crazy bitches can be well worth the price.
Hadn't heard that. Might have to look her up if I'm ever back in the market, heh.
Many people tend to think Berry and Martinez set up Aubry because of their custody battle. She's nuts.
It is all fun and games Kristen until they slash your tires and poison your dog.
I would do some disgusting shit with Alicia Keyes.
I will say that Hallie Berry is holding up INSANELY well. Good bone structure will do that for you.
Black people, in general, age way better than crackers when they take care of themselves. Like this elderly gentleman.
That's definitely true. Same goes for Asians and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics.
That's definitely true. Same goes for Asians
Huhwhat???!?! I think you mean Asian-Americans, because I've lived in Japan and they go from looking cute in their 30's to trainwreck victim in their 40's, and it is abrupt.
Yeah, that's true for Koreans and Northern Chinese as well. No so much for Vietnamese and other S.E. Asians.
Really? When I studied in Japan, my 50-something Japanese teacher was a total babe.
I think part of that is that older Asians dealt with WWII and the aftermath. Nutrition in East Asian countries has improved dramatically and healthy people tend to look better and age better. When the current generation gets older they might not follow this cycle.
The most insanely hot girl I was ever with was 1/2 black, 1/4 Cherokee and 1/4 German. Flawless skin, pouty lips, awesome curves, gorgeous eyes. If only she hadn't moved to California...
Cthulhu will eat you last when the stars align.
Is that a reward or a punishment?
Punishment, I think. You're supposed to pray to be eaten first.
I'll fuck him, too. Assuming he has any holes as they are conventionally understood.
"The truth is that my God is coming back. When he arrives I'll be waiting for him with a shotgun. And I'm keeping the last shell for myself."
Yeah, but what about fatties? I mean, not that they're (err....we're?) a race, but...
"Fat chicks need love too. But they gotta pay."
Hoggin' is such an ugly word. We should encourage the use of 'endomorphiclin''.
Fatties are great. They're usually more enthusiastic about getting laid and they're used to shoving things down their throat. Double benny.
casually political liberals
Remember when those were called low-information voters? Or is that label only applicable to conservatives.
Lots of strange terms tossed around there: "racial liberals" (can't we just say white liberals?), "casually political liberals", etc.
Alt-alt text: "And he's got yours. Bend over."
The sad truth is that lots of Americans were and are willing to sacrifice civil liberties for security no matter who's in charge and lots of people pretty consistently underestimate the negative consequences of war, until they're unignorable.
And how pray tell did the negative consequences of Iraq/Afgh become "unignorable" from 2006-08, and then revert to "ignorable" again in 2009 and after? Would it have anything to do with those casually political liberals in the MSM?
Are you implying that culpability for those wars somehow transferred from the ones who made them to the ones who inherited them? I don't know that any liberals became any less outraged over the Bush wars. Perhaps a bit relieved that someone new was there to end them.
of course, they became less outraged you unrepentant sock puppet. The Obama dogwashing brigade would embrace tax cuts for the evil rich if POTUS said they were necessary.
The anti-war left has been silent for more than four years, or ever since BO was inaugurated the first time. You are the same folks who listened to a candidate blast the individual mandate, but supported a prez whose health bill centered on it. You cheered a candidate who criticized the Bush terror manual, but applaud a prez who added assassination of Americans to the tool kit. And on and on.
You apparently don't know what you're talking about on multiple levels. The antiwar movement never went away, but it did lessen in intensity I suppose once the perpetrators of the phony war left power. I don't understand what you expect from them. Obama is ending the wars. Is he not doing it fast enough?
And I've said over and over that I strongly support due process and am against these policies. It's not gonna make me vote for someone even worse, though.
"someone even worse" being a Republican candidate who has consistently been against his own party's foreign policy stand.
Whore.
Last I looked Obama made the Bush tax rates permanent. And liberals loved him for it despite spending ten years talking about how evil they were.
Shut up sock puppet.
Bullshit. Obama could have closed guantanamo. He could have vetoed the patriot act. Your "just so" argument isn't quite "just so". Obama's in lock-step with all this shit.
We could have pulled out of Iraq on 1/21/09.
Instead we pulled out on the timeline that the "phony war perpetrators" agreed to before Obama was elected.
The antiwar movement never went away, but it did lessen in intensity I suppose once the perpetrators of the phony war left power.
that is so disingenuous that it approaches obscene. Then I am reminded it came from you and it makes perfect sense. You support Team, nothing else.
He's in another fucking universe. That's why I hate the guy so much.
And how many antiwar protests have you attended?
No, it went away. Trust me, I was a part of it until it decided to become a shilling-for-public-union, silent-on-Libya movement.
Are you implying that culpability for those wars somehow transferred from the ones who made them to the ones who inherited continued to fund them, increasing troop levels in one theater while following the drawn-down timetable established by the previous regime in the other theater (and trying to weasel out of that, as well)?
Why yes, that's precisely what I'm saying.
Don't respond to it, JJ. Just don't.
I never blamed Nixon for Vietnam, but i know some who did. Esp. when he resorted to extrajudical killings...
He also ended the draft. The fact that Nixon is the one most associated with Vietnam shows the kind of shit in this article has been going on for a long time.
Perhaps a bit relieved that someone new was there to end them.
I will be sure to tell that to my various friends serving in Afghanistan now. And my second trip to Iraq was under Obama. Must have all been a bad dream.
You do realize that Obama did nothing but follow Bush's plan in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the US stayed not one second less because of Obama?
Of course you don't. Low information, low IQ. Live it Tony. Live it.
Yes I realize that. The important distinction is that Obama didn't use forged documents and well-known fraudsters to fabricate phony intelligence to start the war in the first place. I thought we were talking about culpability. What would you have had Obama do differently? Or do you just want him to be a vessel for all the blame Bush and Cheney got so you can feel better about your full-throated support for their actions?
Obama continued every war. He ended none of them. And he started new ones in North Africa, not just Libya but all over North Africa.
Again Tony, low information, low IQ. You are just the kind of man Obama is looking for.
It's our national curse that there are so many (low IQ, low info) O doesn't have to look that hard.
He didn't start any war anywhere, liar.
He has intervened in places, or what your friends on cable news trashed as "leading from behind." All to near-universal praise for the outcomes.
Not that being better than Bush is an especially high bar.
Exactly. As long as you call it a "kinetic military action" or "intervening" or "ultimate frisbee - only with bombs" it's TOTALLY not a "war". So you can bomb the absolute shit out of people and don't even need authorization from Congress or anything. Sweet.
I don't think anyone is buying your BS, Tony. The folks here all seem to know better. But your kind of comments get to the heart of this article about liberal hypocrisy. And I'd add gullibility. And "Team spirit". Defining traits of the American liberal. "Believe" "Hope" "Dream". But eventually you gotta wake up.
I "Hope" you "Believe" in this "Dream" for a "Change", now Drinkith deep of my Kool-aid...
/JohnObama 10:11
Perhaps a bit relieved that someone new was there to end them.
And yet he didn't end them. He kept essentially the same timetable Bush had.
Wars don't matter. Democrats don't give a shit about wars, they're just leverage, supported or opposed based on what leads to the most free shit. If a Democrat had started the wars we'd hear about how they were noble efforts to free a country from a cruel dictator, and any opposition would be branded racist.
So Obama should have ended them earlier. Okay. Fair enough. I am not a military expert so I really have no opinion on the timetable. As someone with more than a rudimentary understanding of ethics, though, I do know that inheriting a war is not as morally reprehensible as starting one based entirely on lies.
If a Democrat ever started a war as lie-based and incompetently managed as Iraq then I'd be radicalized all over again against them. I never was a partisan until Bush came along and forced the issue by being so godawful.
"As someone with more than a rudimentary understanding of ethics, though"
In the sense that you're aware of how to maneuver around them.
Better.
Also better.
You don't need to hide your true feelings T o n y, we know you're incapable of shame.
All you're saying is you want to blame Obama equally for no reason but to justify your fallacious belief that both parties are equally bad. It's an absurd way to frame the culpability question. Why is continuing the war *just as* morally reprehensible?
The problem, after all, was not the war so much as the aftermath. They created a big mess. Obama airlifting every American from Iraq on Jan. 20, 2009 would probably have been highly irresponsible by the estimation of many experts. I'm not one so I can't really judge. I just know that starting a war based on lies is not as bad as inheriting it, which is actually morally neutral by itself.
Wow, your ability to pull shit out of your ass never fails you.
This. Which is exactly why they're very close in responsibility. The war was wrong itself. You're right that they're not equivalent, I was hasty in making that claim. But I don't think hypocritically keeping it going is much better.
As someone with more than a rudimentary understanding of ethics, though, I do know that inheriting a war is not as morally reprehensible as starting one based entirely on lies.
Puh-lease. This is a man who laughably blamed Benghzai on a youtube video. And the idea that Bush "lied" about Iraq is conspiracy gobbledegook on par with claiming he knew 9-11 was going to happen. You can make the case that their evidence wasn't as strong as they claimed, but that's not a lie. The only reason it doesn't get called conspiracy is because the media is full-on up Obama's butthole.
Also, you also realize that Obama was in FULL SUPPORT of the Afgan war don't you? So let's not use wars in the plural. My guess is he only voted against Iraq because he knew it was going to be costly and was already thinking about his presidential prospects. I have no doubt that he was actually in full support if you remove the politics, and his actions since the election confirm that sense.
He wasn't in office to vote on Iraq.
Sorry, I was thinking about the surge. The point remains that I'm convinced his vote was entirely political, not principled.
I don't think that Obama was in the senate when the 'authorization of force' was voted on. But I think that he claims that he would not have voted 'present' because, you know, you can't do that in the US Senate.
The claims about WMD were based overwhelmingly on one document proved to be a forgery and the testimony of one man known by the intelligence community to be unreliable. At best it was gross incompetence, at worst it was massive deception.
This is all a very well established narrative.
"As someone with more than a rudimentary understanding of ethics"
The one thing I'm entirely sure of about you, Tony, is that you're wholly amoral. Arguing politics with you is like arguing football. You'll say anything.
Hey Hey LBJ
How many kids did you kill today?
You are a lying sack of sockpuppet shit.
Obama's "timetable" was the exact same as Bush's. Both wanted us to start pulling out of Iraq in 2011. Obama has done absolutely nothing of note to convince he his foreign policy is any better than Bush's. His refusal to get Congressional approval on Libya should be an impeachable offense.
It's what Obama hasn't done that has made his foreign policy far, far superior to Bush's. For example, he hasn't started a massive bloody $3 trillion war based on brazenly fabricated justifications.
Bullshit. He continued many of the same things we hate, plus started more conflicts, this time without even going through Congress. Going to war without permission is worse than simply giving crappy or fraudulent information. It's another step in the direction of more executive power.
You're right, he decided to just skip the "Congress" step and go straight to war. TOTALLY better.
We don't know the full extent of the fallout from the brazenly illegal Libya action yet, considering Mali is now engaged in a civil war and there are rumblings of getting in on the action.
You mean like World War 1 and the Democrat Wilson who knew about the Germans promise to torpedo the Luisitania and let the American passengers ride it anyhow? Or WW2 with the Democrat Roosevelt who is now widely believed to know the Japanese were going to attack us in reprisal for the deadly oil embargo of his administration? Or Vietnam and the Tonkin Gulf con job given us by the Democrat Kennedy? No, "they don't matter".
Go Team go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi-JJYnea-M
Would you apply that reasoning to, say, Richard Nixon? After all, Nixon didn't start any wars, ended the draft, and normalized relations with Maoist China. By your logic, Nixon is easily one of the most anti-war Presidents of modern history and certainly more anti-war than Obama, who I would note did start an unprovoked war in Libya.
Obama is more pro-war than Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan under your criterion.
I've said before that Obama is the most liberal president since Nixon.
Well... I guess that statement pretty much speaks for itself, now doesn't it?
Arguably, many leaders in the "threadwinner" category were/are more liberal than Obama.
Here comes Exhibit A...
someone had to do a survey to figure this out? Coming soon - survey to determine from what direction most people believe the sun rises.
Left?? NO! Up! Over there??!? THIS TEST IS BIASED AGAINST VAMPIRES!!!
"But it's okay when our team does it," chapter 18,309. Heck, I've heard liberals even admit that that's the way they think. They don't try to hide the doublethink.
Oh a friend of mine, who is good-looking and therefore not shunned despite our political differences, declared as much a couple of years ago when I tried to call her on this shit.
It isn't the power itself that is upsetting, it's who wields it that matters. She said, point blank, that she will support something if Obama does it purely based on the fact that he's a liberal, and therefore has thought it through (instead of praying about it), even if she would have opposed the same action taken by a conservative. She also found it strange that I should think that position outrageous.
But it feels good Jim. And that is what matters to these people.
I hope you've fucked her at some point cause otherwise it just wouldn't be worth it.
Fucking doesn't make up for that kind of stupid. There are lots of attractive non-idiots with vaginas. Occasional 3 ways with an absolutely smoking girlfriend, with them putting in the kind of effort that leaves you dehydrated afterward might, MIGHT, make for a decent ROI.
Her sentiments are themselves prayers to a God-King.
She also found it strange that I should think that position outrageous.
I removed all unnecessary verbiage.
she's just fucking unprinciples and no amount of good-looking can mask that. There is no talking to these people; they are worse than religious fanatics.
*snert*
It's not that they don't try to hide it; at this point, they're proud of it. Think about that. They're proud of being irrational, unthinking sheep. Proud of it.
Epi, but that doesn't matter because they don't believe in spaghetti monsters and they actually "care" about their fellow man unlike those evil old fucks like Ron Paul who probably owned slaves, raped women, would like to murder all brown people, and certainly thinks corporations (State-mandated fictions that they are) should take over the planet while turning drinking water into a slurry of diarrhea and Brawndo (it's what plants crave). As long as all that is "true," they can pretend 2+2 = Pie (No NOT the number, an actual pie, probably Rhubarb) and all inconsistencies are washed away.
It's natural to have varying levels of trust in people. Ideally I don't want a president, no matter how much I trust him, to have any powers that would be disastrous in the hands of future President I don't trust. But that encompasses many more powers than targeted killing, including the power to sign or veto laws. So perhaps picking the right guy is an important aspect of this.
And before we start making moral judgments, let's realize that (from the article) "White 'racial conservatives' were more likely than white racial liberals to support the targeted killing policy overall, and Obama's support for it didn't effect their opinion, as it had on issues like healthcare reform."
If liberals are to be condemned for hypocrisy, conservatives have a lot to answer for considering on most other non-blowing-shit-up issues they stopped supporting policies for the one and only reason that Obama proposed them, even if they were policies once supported by conservatives.
Conservatives have defended Obama. Hell, John Yoo and Dick Cheney both wrote OPEds about how great Obama is doing on the war in terror. John Brennen, Dr. Death himself, is a former Bush hand.
And Brennen is the guy making decisions about who gets droned. Obama is off playing golf. He had nothing to do with it. Do you trust John Brennen? Do you like having secret CIA wars?
If you don't like waking up next to Brennen and Cheney and Yoo, well tough shit. Obama told you to sleep with them. And that is what you have to do, for the good of the party.
"White 'racial conservatives' were more likely than white racial liberals to support the targeted killing policy overall, and Obama's support for it didn't effect their opinion"
Consistency, even where consistently wrong, is nonetheless respectable when juxtaposed with craven hypocrisy rooted solely in the misbegotten notion that anything the magical black man does is somehow righteous and pure.
Yes, I think the drone war is bullshit. I would think it whether the POTUS doing it was black, white, Karl Marx, or Karl fucking Hess. And the person who believes the drone war is the tits but who believes that no matter who the POTUS doing it is more worthy of respect than the shitstain that thinks drone war is good when done by my guy but bad when done by the other guy. That is a thoroughly contemptible creature.
Tony is 100% right that many conservatives are guilty of this selfsame hypocracy. But has anyone here denied it? Was that just a strawman arg?
What do you mean, strawman? You've been listening to too much Beck and Fox News.
/Tony
It's a false equivalence. I've never seen anything like the shameless and transparently spineless shilling than surrounds Obama. On the right, the neocons approach it, but that's because they're leftists.
I've never seen anything like the shameless and transparently spineless shilling than surrounds Obama.
I guess you didn't pay much attention to Tulpa during the last election.
At this point, I think we need to treat these people like racists. The reason people don't openly say racist shit anymore is because attitudes shifted, but also because we made it unacceptable socially to be an open, unrepentant racist. I mean, there isn't a law against using the word nigger- but a social prohibition has developed around it (in fact, any number of things like that are great examples of how bad things in society can be combated without laws).
So, I think that when these liberals articulate that it is okay because Obama is doing it, we need to shame them. We need to make them feel bad. And I don't care if that causes an initial entrenchment- it did with racists too.
But so much of their self image is based on the idea that because they believe the right things, they are smart and wise and noble. And we need to tell them, constantly, to their faces, that they are stupid and fickle for holding these beliefs and they should feel shame. Because shame is really what they fear. One of the reasons they hold the views they do is to avoid shame- see, they hold these nice altruistic views on the poor and are cool to gay people, so what do they have to be ashamed about?
We need to shame and embarrass the shit out of these people.
So what do you want to do with the conservatives who support these policies regardless? Or is hypocrisy the bigger moral transgression?
Yes Tony. Supporting murder as long as your guy does it is worse. Conservatives at least actually believe Obama is defending the country. Liberals on the other hand such support it because Obama is doing it. There is nothing Obama could do that would cause his supporters to abandon him. He already ordered the murder of an American teenager. And that kind of blind support is much more dangerous because it gives Obama a blank check.
If murdering an American teenager won't get you to stop supporting Obama, nothing will. And that is dangerous.
Yes, Tony, hypocrisy is the bigger moral transgression. As a liberal who is supporting Obama, you are supporting the killing of American citizens any time, any where, under the President's direct orders with no judicial oversight. You are supporting torture and extraordinary rendition, even if the United States ostensibly keeps its hands clean by outsourcing that job to other countries. You are supporting a President who has signed a renewal of the Patriot Act and demanding the ability to detain indefinitely before he signed the NDAA.
Now conservatives? They believe that, while icky, that shit is neccesary. We need to do that to keep our nation safe, and it is okay because the people we are doing it to are waging war upon us and aren't US citizens (therefore not getting the protection of our constitution). They supported these policies under Bush. The only real problem the Republicans have with drones is whether the President says he can uses them on US Citizens.
But liberals like you? When Bush was doing it, it was America on the road to facism. It was worthy of impeachment. But now that Obama pursues the same policies, you don't say shit. Which means one of two things:
Cont..
1) Bush was right and you are wrong
Bush's war on terror did not violate civil liberties, or if it did, it did so in an acceptable way. He pursued the course that any sane person would have, and you were wrong to oppose him. In retrospect, maybe you owe him an apology for calling him a fascist, as you now favor his policies in the War on Terror.
p2) You don't give a shit about civil liberties, you give a shit about power
Civil liberties are just a means to an end, which is getting liberal politicians elected. For all your concern about gay marriage and whether we treat prisoners nicely, that's just bullshit window dressing- you want the reigns of power for economic stewardship. Basically, getting your "fair share" from the undeserving rich and expanding the welfare state are all you really care about, but if you told voters that they might not like you as much.
So which is it Tony? Are you going to apologize to Bush or admit to being a man with no honor or moral fiber to speak of?
"You don't give a shit about civil liberties, you give a shit about power"
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
There's absolutely no other way to reconcile supporting pot legalization while banning sodas. They're both just a means to an end, and the end is they rule and all the rubes shut the fuck up about it or else.
So which is it Tony?
Why can't it be both?
If you're talking to me, I have explicitly stated many times that I don't support Obama's anti-due process policies. I haven't changed my mind about one antiterrorism policy that I can think of. So stop lumping me in with the liberals inside your head. My politics were formed by the massive incompetent fuckups of the Bush administration, and that is what I consider the best-case scenario alternative to what we have, since any Republican administration in the future will no doubt be even more stupid and corrupt. All I believe is there is a difference and there are only two choices. And I happen to be right, so your you can get off your moral high horse as if you've done one single thing more than I have to save one life in the Middle East.
Oh, they got this all screwed up...
Works on contingency, no! Money down.
You have the timeline reversed, dude. It did use to be unacceptable and socially shameful to be an obvious hypocrite and to clearly have zero integrity. That social prohibition has been specifically worn away to allow for unabashed partisanship and hypocrisy. So the exact opposite of what you call for has already been being done with glee by partisans for years and years now.
I think that when these liberals articulate that it is okay because Obama is doing it, we need to shame them.
Nice thought, just one problem. They have no shame, so it wouldn't work.
AuH20: I totally agree.
I've listened to the nonsensical puke of these people, many of whom are otherwise intelligent and frequently decently educated and have realized that principled/fact based/logic based arguments simply don't get through to any of them. It's never been my experience. They're not listening to that sort of thing.
They'll deny it thoroughly but their thinking is emotionally based and it's largely a desire to feel noble or righteous or alleviate guilt. And they're used to being on the offensive to Conservatives (who sometimes fully deserve it). But turn the tables and give them what-for for being dishonest, hypocritical and, about all, hurting people through their nonsense and watch the smoke start coming out of their ears. I've had a few actually RUN away. One lady stuck her fingers in her ears.
Delicious.
If liberals had principles they wouldn't be liberal. Seriously, how could someone with principles call themselves "pro-choice" yet want to outlaw guns, soda pop, school choice, smoking, video games, etc. You're only free with regard to something that happens in a womb, and even then only if you supplied the right half of the genetic material.
I once challenged a government-worshiping, "pro-choice" radfem on that point. She was infuriated that anyone would ask, but she didn't have an answer.
Doc, did you ask her "What did the five fingers say to the face?"
...Oh shit...I can hear the PC women's "rights" black helicopters are coming for me now... I want my headstone to read "So long you mother fuckers!" and my ashes scattered into Glenn Beck's and Rachel Maddow's respective coffees after being irradiated.
What people need to realize is that Obama will simply do droning better than a Republican would have done.
Under a Republican administration, Brennan would come up to the President with a list of targets, and the President would sign it because he's a simplistic fundamentalist who doesn't believe in nuance. Whereas under Obama, Brennan will present his target list and Obama will think happy thoughts about nuance, secularism, rainbows and puppies, and then will sign it. Totally different.
Nah,
With president Obama, Brennan shows the list to Valerie Jarrett and she nods her head in approval. No need to tarnish the lord & savior with things like signing off on kill lists.
Still wrong. Much like Santa, Obama knows who's been bad or good... thus no need for oversight. He gives the list to Brennan.
In other news: sky is apparently blue while grass is green. Scientists baffled by why two different things are different colors. Also: water is wet, Global Climate Change believed to be cause.
The problem is that modern liberalism, as such, is not a philosophy of governance as much as it is an aesthetic stance.
Conservatism as a philosophy is all kinds of incoherent; at some level all Platonic ideals and philosophy cave in on themselves or contradict in some areas, and fail to adequately describe the real world. Conservatism in particular also has some rather convenient loopholes and exceptions to their ideology that you could drive a truck through. However, there are some core ideals there; liberalism has no core ideals beyond a very vague (and not rigorously discussed) commitment to equality of some sort. It has more in common with the radical center ideologies of interwar Europe than socialism, really -- there's no scholasticism, emphasis is placed on a constantly agitated core of activists and on action as opposed to philosophizing.
Ask a socialist or a conservative what they believe and why, and they'll tell you all about it. You might want to heave or roll your eyes at the end of the conversation, but odds are you'll leave knowing what they believe and why. Ask a liberal, and all you'll get is a blank stare or mumbled platitudes in response. The modern liberal doesn't really believe much of anything; it's why the "liberal" base is so easily co-opted by leadership as opposed to the conservative base.
There is no hypocrisy when there was no core belief to betray in the first place.
I think that might be what's really offensive about American liberals- they're too stupid to be socialists or communists.
Oh, sure, their ideas and policies have some language and some of the veneer of Marx, but they lack the intellectual capacity to really explore it in any kind of interesting way. If anything, they take his basic idea about their being different classes of people and inequality and turn it into the retarded soup of "privelege" which turns every discussion that they have into a clusterfuck of who is more oppressed (black male vs. white female GO!).
And the really annoying thing about them is that in their heads, they are ineffective dreamers fighting the system (yes, the system that they created and run. Because there is no liberal bias in government or media). Because of the oppression Olympics they are always engaged in, they never get all of what they want (for example, they are still pissed that Obama didn't keep the public option, let alone propose single payers) and, in another unfortunate trait they got from Marx, victory for them is either total or nonexistent.
It will be an amusing day indeed, when they have hemp ropes tied around their necks and they, naked, shivering, and bewildered, are dragged out into the streets and shot.
It won't be that amusing when we're standing right next to them.
Not a fan of gallows humor I take it?
In the last three decades or so, liberalism has been informed by political correctness, whose core postulate is that certain people's emotions are an infallible oracle into Capital-T Truth. In other words, political correctness (and thus contemporary liberalism) is not a political philosophy, but a complete refusal to form one.
Ask a socialist or a conservative what they believe and why, and they'll tell you all about it. You might want to heave or roll your eyes at the end of the conversation, but odds are you'll leave knowing what they believe and why. Ask a liberal, and all you'll get is a blank stare or mumbled platitudes in response.
The problem is that in America both labels are meaningless.
"Conservatives" are an amalgamation of at least 3 different philosophies of government.
"Progressives" are an unholy alliance of crony's feeding off the state and their useful idiots that get feelings of moral superiority by supporting the cronies.
Kids going into debt to support higher ed parasites in exchange for worthless degrees is the perfect distillation of modern American progressivism.
I think both the Left and Right are unintelligible hodgepodges united by interest groups. Labor unions don't have a lot in common with environmentalists in practice, as demonstrated by Keystone. Blacks, gays and Latino immigrants are all minorities that end up with obvious political conflicts of interest. Same with big business and social conservatives, or war hawks/socons and libertarians (who are inaccurately branded "right").
Don't ask a stupid liberal. I'll be happy to tell you, specifically, what I believe. Perhaps the problem is you haven't taken the time to understand what liberalism is. God knows nearly every single person here thinks of liberals as Bill O'Reilly describes them rather than as they actually are.
And it's all so absurd, since liberals are absolutely not your problem right now.
The irony, it burns!
You're partly right, they're only HALF the problem right now.
No thanks. We'll take the advice of your first sentence.
I'm pretty sure it's not conservatives who want to lock me up or shoot me for having the audacity to own a politically-incorrect rifle, Tony.
GFY.
No just for having sex for pleasure. Well I guess that explains the relative level of concern around these parts.
If you photoshopped that poster into the back seat of a Lincoln Continental, you'd have a great "training aid".