Bertha+Liberal=Why?

[Bertha Venation]

Surf City Baby = Bertha Venation

since I started trying to avoid cookies, the demon electronic version have been throwing themselves at my feet

 

[Bruzilla]

Hey Surf City. In medical terms, contact with an exposed nerve will cause pain and usually induce a physical reaction from a patient. In this case, hitting a raw nerve will cause someone to react strongly to a statement. There are always reasons that people focus or react on one point over others, usually because it challenges their sense of self or the known truth, and in this case Bertha "pinged" on the statement that she might be just as guilty of having double standards as the people she loathes for having them (that's the open nerve if you will.) Bertha tends to break a post into individual sections and reply to them. In this case she locked right onto this one issue.

I'm not an English major, but when someone says "the jury's not fully in; I've been wrestling with this one for years with no end in sight" it tells me that they have some concerns and aren't sure about their opinion, or, they are sure of their opinion but don't feel comfortable expressing it. Is there any other meaning that you can construe that I'm missing? And rather than just coming out and admitting her double standard she goes max defensive and starts making comments like "I'm getting a little tired of seeing my comments blown into something I neither believe nor intended to write and being beaten over the head with them" rather than making a well thought out reply like she usually does. I don't think I was beating her over the head... rather I was just pointing out, what to me was, a blatant contradiction in her views, i.e., she wants express freedoms for Gays but isn't sure about rights for gun owners.

So to summarize, I guess I'm saying the "open nerve" is the realization that you are guilty of the very things you dislike in others. Of course... I could be completely full of BS.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Bruzilla

I'm not an English major, but when someone says "the jury's not fully in; I've been wrestling with this one for years with no end in sight" it tells me that they have some concerns and aren't sure about their opinion, or, they are sure of their opinion but don't feel comfortable expressing it. Is there any other meaning that you can construe that I'm missing? And rather than just coming out and admitting her double standard she goes max defensive and starts making comments like "I'm getting a little tired of seeing my comments blown into something I neither believe nor intended to write and being beaten over the head with them"

Or it could mean she understands the dangers of having armed criminals, and would like a better way to reduce gun violence that does not coincide with the current liberal notion of "all or nothing" gun control which we know takes guns away from the innocent, not the criminals?

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
Bertha "pinged" on the statement that she might be just as guilty of having double standards as the people she loathes for having them (that's the open nerve if you will.)

Again, you've read things in that aren't there. Here you state that I "loathe" people because they have double standards. You're wrong. I don't understand the double standards but I "loathe" no one.

Originally posted by Bruzilla
Bertha tends to break a post into individual sections and reply to them. In this case she locked right onto this one issue.

Mm-hmm. For now. I take a lot of time when I write. You read too much into this issue; that's why I addressed it immediately and in brief.

Originally posted by Bruzilla
I'm not an English major, but when someone says "the jury's not fully in; I've been wrestling with this one for years with no end in sight" it tells me that they have some concerns and aren't sure about their opinion, or, they are sure of their opinion but don't feel comfortable expressing it. Is there any other meaning that you can construe that I'm missing?

No, you're right. But you are wrong that I'm undecided about the rights of gun owners. To me, your rights are clear as the 2nd Amendment.

Originally posted by Bruzilla
And rather than just coming out and admitting her double standard she goes max defensive and starts making comments like "I'm getting a little tired of seeing my comments blown into something I neither believe nor intended to write and being beaten over the head with them" rather than making a well thought out reply like she usually does.

Perhaps I was waiting for the time to think it out and the time to write it. Call it a flaw if you wish; it takes me a long time to write what I want to say. And I am tired of seeing my comments made into something they're not, because I've seen it in more than one of your posts. I guess it's as I said before: I am too subtle. I apologize for not being more explicit from the outset; I hadn't thought it necessary.

Read me loud & clear, Bruzilla, Sharon, 2A, and all other gun owners: I support your right to own guns. How can I not? I must. It is our Constitutional right.

What I am "on the fence" about is the reach our government should/n't have or the limits it should/n't exercise in gun control: keeping guns away from felons, protecting our children from the firearms of irresponsible and/or criminal gun owners (because not everyone will be as responsible with their firearms as you), educating children on gun safety, etc., etc., etc. I just started to explore my views on the issue a few years ago; with the murder of a co-worker's husband last October, I began to explore in earnest, partly because the murderer obtained his weapon illegally. I realize that for those of you who see the entire issue of firearms in black & white, it's hard to understand how someone could be ambivalent about portions of the debate. :shrug: What can I say? I'm not going to lie about what I think. It's just as you, Bruzer, don't seem to see my equality as a gay American as being that clearcut.

Originally posted by Bruzilla
rather I was just pointing out, what to me was, a blatant contradiction in her views, [based upon an erroneous assumption] i.e., she wants express freedoms for Gays* but isn't sure about rights for gun owners.

Just let me take this one more opportunity to state that I never said I wasn't sure about rights for gun owners. Can you acknowledge this?

Being undecided on an issue does not mean that one is undecided as to the core issue.

Now that I've made my position clearer (I hope), maybe you can show me my double standard.


* "express freedoms for gays" -- what would these be?

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Or it could mean she understands the dangers of having armed criminals, and would like a better way to reduce gun violence that does not coincide with the current liberal notion of "all or nothing" gun control which we know takes guns away from the innocent, not the criminals?

too.

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
Are all Liberals and Conservatives of the same mind? No, but what does that matter?

It matters a great deal. We can't be ruled strictly by the will of the majority. From time to time the minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

What's more, if one values individuals at all, one has to listen to individual voices. That's a central point of this whole thread. Having the impression that I should've turned out as a political conservative, Vraiblonde asked me to explain how I turned out liberal. That's something I've been examining for more than ten years.

I really don't think there's any other political philosophy I could have arrived at. With the way I grew up, for example, I know there is bedrock truth to the connection between unwanted pregnancies, child abuse, drug & alcohol abuse, poor self-esteem, and welfare as a "living." These miserable things aren't stereotypes perpetuated by evil Democrats so they can keep breathing life into some fat porkbarrel, evil, socialist government envisioned on the other side of the aisle.

Wrapping up your list . . .

Originally posted by Bruzilla
10. And the King of them all... most people need the government in order to survive.

I can't tell if you meant to use this list to taunt me, or if you just love to generalize about politics you abhor--or if you honestly think those things are the true political beliefs of the average liberal. Will you enlighten me, please?

Originally posted by Bruzilla
Are there plenty of examples of "Conservethink"? Yep... but as a whole I agree with the principles of Conservethink more than those of Libthink.

Bruzilla, the things you listed aren't "principles." They are generalizations based on the assumptions you've made (you who disagree with liberal politics) about what liberals think.

 

[vraiblonde]

Okay, finally got around to coming back to this thread.

The Libs I see on TV and have known personally have the following in common:

• Pro-welfare and think we don't give enough money to the less fortunate among us.
• Pro-abortion and think an unborn child is an "unviable tissue mass" until it actually is born. And sometimes not even then, in the case of certain Harvard professors. Can't understand why anyone would object to what a woman does "with her own body".
• Anti-war, in all circumstances. Think terrorists and dictators can be "negotiated with" and taught to be tolerant and compassionate.
• Pro-gay - many to the point that they think transgendered isn't a mental illness, but merely another "choice".
• Anti-gun - some just think there should be enormous regulations and some go for outright banning.
• Anti-death penalty - most cannot name a single incident where putting someone to death for their crime is appropriate.
• Big time government intervention people. Anything that goes wrong needs a new law. There's no such thing as "sh*t happens", just a government that didn't put a new law in place soon enough.

JLab can disagree all he wants but facts are facts. It's a rare Liberal that is pro-death penalty and anti-abortion. In fact, it's so rare, I've never even heard of one.

So I think I've answered my own question. You tend to agree with most of the above, making you a liberal. I disagree with most of the above, making me a conservative.

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
So I think I've answered my own question. You tend to agree with most of the above, making you a liberal. I disagree with most of the above, making me a conservative.

Okay. Most of the above--okay. I won't be pedantic, although I could be. I'll go point-by-point with what you posted and tell you where I do disagree, if you like.

On another MB, an exchange led to this light quip flying off my fingers: "What can I say; we're liberals. We tend to see the good in everyone." Someone posted that that was the most succinct definition of "liberal" that she'd ever seen. I disagree because I know conservatives who also see the good in everyone.

My point is that I don't think it's such a good thing to label everyone who comes down the pike as one or the other. IMO that's why Congress & many statehouses are in constant partisan gridlock.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Bertha Venation
"What can I say; we're liberals. We tend to see the good in everyone."

I'd actually go for that as a pretty good summation. And in posting and erasing subsequent comments, I'm starting to think that might be a brilliant summation.

Welfare
Liberals think if you give a brother a hand, he'll rise above and make a life. Level the playing field, and all that.

Conservatives think that if you give a brother a hand-out, he'll either resent your charity or spit in your eye and want more. They don't believe in a level playing field because of the humans involved.

Death Penalty
Liberals think criminals can "pay their debt to society" and be rehabilitated. Or they think it's not the government's place to take a life.

Conservatives believe that happens rarely and it's not worth taking the chance. And they think the death penalty definitely falls under "providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare".

War
Liberals believe that there's no such thing as a bad person. They think terrorists and dictators always have a good reason to bomb embassies and Israeli grocery stores - typically oppression and economic issues.

Conservatives believe very strongly in bad people. In fact, conservative Presidents have been bitten hard by underestimating just how bad people can be.

Transgendered People
Note that I separate that from "gays" because I believe they're two different issues.
Liberals think, "I'm okay, you're okay" and there's no such thing as a 'freak', just people who make different choices.

Conservatives don't care to legitimize or associate with people they consider to be clearly mentally ill.

Very interesting. I'm feeling the scales fall from my eyes.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by Bertha Venation

On another MB, an exchange led to this light quip flying off my fingers: "What can I say; we're liberals. We tend to see the good in everyone." Someone posted that that was the most succinct definition of "liberal" that she'd ever seen. I disagree because I know conservatives who also see the good in everyone.

.

Interesting. It seems to me that liberals believe the opposite, believing that without the government to intervene, people will go from bad to worse. People cannot be trusted to do good on their own, they must have laws to be sure they do it. They must be forced to be tolerant, they must be forced to be charitable, and so on - without the force of law, people won't do this. Seems to me a MIStrust of the good in people.

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by Frank
Interesting. It seems to me that liberals believe the opposite, believing that without the government to intervene, people will go from bad to worse. People cannot be trusted to do good on their own, they must have laws to be sure they do it. They must be forced to be tolerant, they must be forced to be charitable, and so on - without the force of law, people won't do this. Seems to me a MIStrust of the good in people.

Frank, would you say your own definition of "liberal" is someone who must have the government's hand in everything? Not bad. I know I can't choose a pair of socks in the morning without calling the HHS Hosiery Hotline.

Just a little friendly sarcasm there. No meant. Really; I've never defined my politics by how involved I say the government must be in others' lives. But I'll think about it for a while.

 

[Bertha Venation]

case in point

Read this letter to the editor of the Washington Post.

I definitely call the salaries of top executives obscene. But regulate them? I don't think so.

If people want to be greedy, selfish azzholes on the backs of their employees, IMO it's up to their employees to take them to task. I admit I am inclined to throw the Federal Register and a thousand acts of Congress at them, or at least to haul them before the spectre of Joseph Welch and make them squirm ("Have you no sense of decency?!").

But no. I don't think it's Congress' place to say to these greedy mofos, "spread the wealth." I think that has to come from within the organization in question and, more importantly, from within the person. It just smacks too much of imposing my morality on another who doesn't share the same code.