The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 1, 2010, 12:14 PM   #1
LouPran
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2008
Location: Buried under record fall of "climate change"
Posts: 346
An interesting article : "Why do Liberals bleed"

I believe that many here who are obviously, mostly conservative to some degree, will find this article interesting and to some degree worth discussion. It's not a political thread, so hopefully, it won't be treated like those that get closed down. Hopefully it's the right forum section too being it discusses a Civil Right.

It's worth the read to get a little insight into at least one opinion of the anti gun liberal's mind.

From the American Thinker - A female life long liberal's take on why gun ownership IN AMERICA and losing the victim mentality, might not be such a bad idea...

Just one woman's opinion, but I think she's got it right. Her conclusion at the end IMO, is spot on.

The Police officers comment and observations of the victim mentality in Berkeley was also interesting.
--------------
Why Do Liberals Bleed?

By Robin of Berkeley

I've been thinking about learning how to fire a gun, maybe even buying one. Now if you are a lifelong conservative, Red State dweller, and NRA member, you might be thinking, "Big yawn. What's next? She'll be telling us what she had for breakfast?"

So let me try to convey to you the enormousness, the Alice in Wonderland quality of my even posing the question, something I've never, ever considered in my life. No one I know owns a gun. I've never seen a gun (well on a holster of a police officer but I never wanted to get up close and personal with it). I have given lots of good money over the years for gun control. Learning to fire a gun seems as ludicrous as deciding to take up brain surgery.

But, I am rethinking absolutely everything. There is not a single thing that I believed, that I held absolute and holy, that is not up for grabs. My brain is in a tizzy 24/7 and I don't know if up is down, or if east is west.

And the thought about a gun just came to me last week when I was listening to talk radio. A caller related how an armed citizen in the South stopped a take over robbery in a fast food restaurant. A light went on in my head. Suddenly I realized that the Red States may be on to something: the police are strongly supported, the citizens have guns, and, therefore, the gangsters may be a little reluctant to take over the local Burger King.

Contrast that to the Blue States where few liberals own guns and the police are being emasculated. You may have heard of the horrendous case in Oakland where four cops were killed by a known felon, on a parole violation for child rape. But the powers that be in Oakland sent out the message to the police to make nice and not scare the populace, so the officers never drew their guns when approaching this felon. (Anyone else notice how the Left is slowly but surely disarming the police and military, situation-by-situation?) When I expressed my heartfelt grief to a friend about the deaths of these brave officers, he said, "The man who shot them was a human being too."

(I'd like to say that, as a psychotherapist, I responded in a sophisticated and psychologically crafty manner. No such luck. I almost blew a gasket, turned bright red, and said with barely contained anger, "He lost his claim to be human when he raped a child." To the friend's credit -- and perhaps some fear on his part -- he shut up.)

So what I realized during the talk show is that in places like Berkeley, only the criminals have the power. Not only do they have the power of guns, they are supported by several thousand brainwashed zombies who give the green light to criminals because they are the victims of someone else's "privilege" and "supremacy" and "imperialism." (Although I was a leftist until recently, I was the rare exception: I never excused crime because of the bad guy's race, creed, age, sex, or daddy being a meanie.)

I recall vividly what a Berkeley police officer once told me:

"Berkeley is a city of victims. You try to understand the street people and the criminals and sit down and talk to them and then they hit you on the head and steal your purse. The police come and then you refuse to press charges. The criminals know this and prey on you."

And he's right: almost everyone I know has been a victim of some awful crime, from being in restaurants during takeover robberies (not uncommon here), to being robbed at gunpoint, to being assaulted for no other reason except a thrill for the assailants. A neighbor, who had lived all over the world, once said to me, "Berkeley is the most dangerous place I've ever lived." Her husband was robbed at gunpoint as were almost all her friends. She couldn't wait to get out of here.

I wish I could say I'm an exception to the victim rule. But several years ago I was coming out of a restaurant in a decent area and was mugged. As Gavin de Becker states in his seminal book, The Gift of Fear, (which I, unfortunately, read after the fact), victims generally sense when they're about to be victimized but ignore the signs in order to be nice and not judgmental. This was my situation exactly. I could tell right away that the guy looked sinister. But it was a major street, at high noon, and I didn't want to seem racist, so I turned the corner a few feet to reach my car, and a minute later, had my purse stolen as well as all my feelings of being safe in the world.

I'll spare you (and me) the horrible details, but the incident ended with my having a broken nose and two black eyes, and needing surgery for the nose several days later. People wrote bad checks and stole rental cars in my name for a year afterwards. I developed a fear not only of people, but of the phone and the mail, as every day was another reminder of what happened.

Witness the response of a left wing friend, Judy, when I told her I was mugged. She said, and I quote, "I don't think what you went through was so bad. And anyway he was a victim too." (Maybe it's a good thing I wasn't armed back then.)

So I'm asking myself whether I should become armed, and I'm also wondering why so many "educated" people (I might have just answered my own question) put up with crime infested streets? Why are the biggest protests against the cops? Why are the innocent viewed as guilty, and the guilty innocent? Why is no one up in arms about liberals literally bleeding?

Then it occurred to me: Stockholm Syndrome, the same brainwashing that turned Berkeley resident Patty Hearst into Tania the bank robber. She was tortured, sexually abused, and kept in isolation by the far left group, the Symbionese Liberation Army (kissing cousins of Bill and Bernadine's Weather Underground). Successfully brainwashed, she joined their twisted and sick "army."

In the real Stockholm, the hostages were locked in a vault for days, came to "love" their captors in that perverted way that an abused woman loves her husband, and refused to testify against them in court. One even became engaged to her captor.

SS (good acronym, huh?) is rooted in a basic, primordial instinct for self protection in the wake of extraordinary trauma and terror. To survive, the victim identifies with the captors and merges psychologically with them. But SS takes on a life of its own when victims stop seeing their own humanity and want only to serve the abuser.

Living in places like Berkeley, being force fed propaganda, with police afraid to protect you, your friends unsympathetic, and no one armed, SS can spread like a virus. What starts out as compassion morphs into complicity. Occasionally there may be someone, like me, who snaps out of the trance they've been in for decades. After all, Tania woke up and became Patty Hearst again and, interestingly, married her bodyguard. (I bet that they own a whole lot of weapons.) But she had to leave Berkeley for a leafy, sheltered life elsewhere to do this.

But then again, I never bought into the notion of collective guilt, that groups of people are guilty because of the color of their skin, and individuals are exonerated because of some protected victim status. I'm the rare bird. In Berkeley, most people are so over identified with their ideology, that their logical, questioning minds have flown the coop along with a God-given knowledge, possessed by every 5 year old, of right and wrong.

As a good, loyal liberal, I always expected others to take care of me. If I gave my unqualified loyalty to the system, I could sleep well at night. But now, with victims left bleeding, a dangerously naive government, and sheep like masses, I see the absurdity of my thinking.

I heard a philosopher once say that one of the biggest existential tasks of life is giving up the fantasy of the ultimate rescuer. Liberalism reinforced this fantasy for me, as it does for so many others. Now I see the truth: We come into this world alone, and we will leave it alone. When we live our lives in the back seat of the car expecting Daddy to drive us, we only have a child's view of the world.

On that very dark day in November years ago when I became an object of someone's evil and inhumanity, I glimpsed a truth I never wanted to see: that there really is no protection, not in the way I had always thought, not by other flawed humans. I didn't know what to do with this insight until 1 1/2 years ago when I discovered that there were others out there like me, that there was something called conservatism, and now slowly but surely the pieces are coming together for me, one by one.

As I continue on the path to independence and personal responsibility, perhaps looking to myself for protection is another step on my journey.

***
A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a psychotherapist marooned in Berkeley.

on "Why Do Liberals Bleed?"
__________________
Aspire to inspire before you expire - the poster formerly known as JP.
LouPran is offline  
Old April 1, 2010, 12:17 PM   #2
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 26, 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
As I continue on the path to independence and personal responsibility, perhaps looking to myself for protection is another step on my journey.
She's getting there. I have a hunch the day will come when she'll realize Berkeley is awfully confining, and end up in Boise or somewhere of the sort: real America the way it used to be.
__________________
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.
Standing Wolf is offline  
Old April 1, 2010, 12:29 PM   #3
LouPran
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2008
Location: Buried under record fall of "climate change"
Posts: 346
Agreed. I've personally known others that were very anti gun rights that later grew out of the victim mentality and accepted personal responsibility.
__________________
Aspire to inspire before you expire - the poster formerly known as JP.
LouPran is offline  
Old April 1, 2010, 12:33 PM   #4
Alan Duke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 1, 2009
Location: Tomball,TX
Posts: 111
Good post. It's a shame she had to learn through the mishaps and deaths of others though. I for one am glad she saw how absurd some of the comments of the exreme liberals can be on "victims".
Alan Duke is offline  
Old April 1, 2010, 12:43 PM   #5
LouPran
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2008
Location: Buried under record fall of "climate change"
Posts: 346
Agreed. I'm in utter amazement at times having discussions with those against personal firearm ownership and the premise of home defense.

Once actually told me the other day, that it was easier and safer to call 911 than to grab a firearm, in a home invasion saying I or my wife or daughters (Both teens) would be unable to get a gun and rack the slide fast enough to defend themselves.

He seemed to believe they'd be better off risking being raped or murdered with 911 on the phone, then to attempt to protect themselves.

Logic like that, I just couldn't argue with ...
__________________
Aspire to inspire before you expire - the poster formerly known as JP.
LouPran is offline  
Old April 1, 2010, 12:54 PM   #6
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,677
For someone who claims to be liberal she sure spends a lot of time taking cheap shots at other liberals on points not related to her thesis. Threre is a good narrative there; but I'm not a fan of the way it was presented. It looks to me like the article was written more to make "conservatives" feel good about their beliefs.

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; April 1, 2010 at 01:24 PM.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 1, 2010, 12:59 PM   #7
LouPran
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2008
Location: Buried under record fall of "climate change"
Posts: 346
Sounds like you believe she may have been being intellectually dishonest, but I don't get that at all. To give an analogy ... I think she's like a smoker who's quit smoking. They're far worse to other smokers than the average non smoker. So perhaps she's got a little animosity to her former way of thinking and those that think like that way.
__________________
Aspire to inspire before you expire - the poster formerly known as JP.
LouPran is offline  
Old April 1, 2010, 01:32 PM   #8
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,677
Yes, I think the writer is being intellectually dishonest. However, worse than that in my view, is that the writer is only effectively communicating to the people who don't need to hear the author's point of view. This piece is written more as a "Look how smart you are for believing what you do!" piece. Which is OK; but I'm already pretty convinced of that. Having somebody else agree with me doesn't really change or affect my own rationale for why I support self-defense and the Second Amendment.

If the author isn't being intellectually dishonest, she would be better off using that expertise in pscychotherapy along with some empathy to convince some of her liberal friends of her point. Of course, that would mean leaving out irrelevant rhetorical flourishes like "kissing cousins of Bill and Bernadine's Weather Underground)" and "As a good, loyal liberal, I always expected others to take care of me" and using reason to appeal to the ideas that they value.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 1, 2010, 01:45 PM   #9
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,000
Just FYI...

As long as discussion remains focused on traditional liberal (individual) views of gun ownership, how they can be challenged and hopefully changed, it will remain open.

If it digresses into a discussion of traditional liberal (political party) views, or worse yet, diatribes against a political party or parties, it will be closed.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old April 1, 2010, 01:47 PM   #10
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 834
Everyone interprets the "texts they experience" through the window of their own perspective.

You tell a "friend" that you took a smackdown, got two black eyes, and had to go in for surgery to repair your broken face, and they respond 'ahh suck it up and put on your big girl pants. The perp is a victim of society.'

I believe I'd harbor a bit of animosity against people who think that way as well.

If I were to write a blog piece, I would be writing it "to whom it may concern", not necessarily to one side of a debate or the other. On one hand any author attempts to be pursuasive. On the other, every author can only present their own truth - and not anyone elses...
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old April 1, 2010, 01:53 PM   #11
Madcap_Magician
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 618
Quote:
When we live our lives in the back seat of the car expecting Daddy to drive us, we only have a child's view of the world.
This is the most brilliant and insightful thought I've seen all week.
Madcap_Magician is offline  
Old April 1, 2010, 03:03 PM   #12
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
I don't doubt she was at one time a "Liberal." At the point she wrote this article she certainly was not. Maybe we will all get lucky and she has converted to classical liberalism.

I hate democrats for stealing the word liberal. Otherwise they are quite nice. I have even dated a few of the "liberal" girls who are ok with guns.

The ONLY way I have ever found it is possible to convert someone who is anti-gun, no matter their political position, is to take them to the range.

Most anti-gun folks feel guns are some sort of mystical super weapon that is uncontrollable and goes off unreliably or something similar born out of ignorance.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread

Last edited by johnwilliamson062; April 1, 2010 at 03:12 PM.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old April 1, 2010, 03:31 PM   #13
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
Yes, I think the writer is being intellectually dishonest. However, worse than that in my view, is that the writer is only effectively communicating to the people who don't need to hear the author's point of view. This piece is written more as a "Look how smart you are for believing what you do!" piece.
Well said, BR.

I think "Robin" is a ringer. There's actually very little here about why actual liberals/leftists/progressives might support the Second Amendment, as many of us do. Her point seems more to be something like "I had an epiphany about self-defense, and now I realize how foolish liberals are..." -- where "liberal" is defined by straw-man positions that have little to do with what most people on the left actually believe.

And the stuff (I won't dignify it by calling it an argument) about Stockholm Syndrome, and liberals' lacking the "knowledge, possessed by every 5 year old, of right and wrong" is just... silly and offensive.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old April 1, 2010, 04:20 PM   #14
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 834
Dunno Vanya...

Perhaps generalizing about what 'people on the left actually believe' only yields what most generalizations do; or perhaps the 'liberals/leftists/progressives' I am acquainted with are not representative.

But I'm acquainted with a fair number of L/L/P intellectuals, and they often demonstrate a trend towards looking at a heinous crime and noting that the perpetrator was a victim as well; a disenfranchised and deprived individual who was structurally channeled to behave as s/he did by the repressive societal structure that exists in the U.S. today. They can explain in great detail the extent to which the perpetrator is a product of a series of external stressors, familial disintegration, economic disparity, and societal marginalization, until the discussion reaches a point where the perpetrators behavior is deeply understood to be a logical product of long-standing systemic failure. In fact, taken to it's extreme, the perpetrators behavior was very nearly pre-determined by this historic and synergistic confluence of causation - to a point where the perpetrator is not really responsible for their own behavior at all. The perpetrator is, rather, a product of their environment; and must be viewed as such.

In my experience, this is representative of how many (not all) 'people on the left actually believe'. To this extent, it would appear that the writer was at least familiar with this peculiar paradigm:

"Its very sad what happened to the victim. But the perpetrator deserves to be deeply understood as not entirely responsible for their actions, which were in fact structurally derived..."

I won't argue against the more provocative phrases being offensive, but IMO the writer - ringer or not - accurately described the perspective of many folks I know who might be described as L/L/P...

Your mileage may vary.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old April 1, 2010, 04:38 PM   #15
markj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,967
I dont get this, maybe it is a east west coast thing? I mean where I live everyone has a gun in the house. Many are hunting shotguns and or rifles. But their political affiliations are far different. Some are libs, some are dems, all hunt and shoot.

We label it antis, anti guns, anti smoking, anti freedom. These folks are on both sides, do not kid yourself on that.

Makes me glad I live in the community I live in. We all get together often for VFD stuff, parties etc. No problems at any of these functions. We also support the Patriot Guard here and ride on as many of them as we can.
markj is offline  
Old April 1, 2010, 05:27 PM   #16
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
only the criminals have the power. Not only do they have the power of guns, they are supported by several thousand brainwashed zombies who give the green light to criminals because they are the victims of someone else's "privilege" and "supremacy" and "imperialism."
I don't know, that sounds more like Ted Nugent than a psychotherapist from Berkley. If it's real, I guess my hats off for the baby steps.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old April 1, 2010, 05:49 PM   #17
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
Mark J,
Your location is listed as Iowa. I will make the assumption you also live outside the city limits or in a small agrarian town. I live in a mid sized satellite of Dayton with a lot of local agriculture also. The difference is not east v. west coast, it is not being on a coast IMO. Outside the city limits in Ohio you would find that ALMOST every house has a 12 ga shotgun or 22lr rifle, especially if the resident has lived outside the city for more than a couple years(urban sprawl). A few "pet livestock," such as laying chickens, being attacked by racoon or coyote brings reality to the forefront. In many cases ALL firearms are kept in a safe locked up at all times with only the father/husband having access(usually due to lack of interest of spouse).

Now, the country "liberals" I know own "utilitarian" shotguns and rifles almost exclusively and more than one says that is all that anyone needs and banning the rest is a good idea in order to lower inner city crime(no matter what evidence is presented he holds to this belief). I believe he is an NRA member although he does not broadcast it. He has a few NRA magazines in his house related hunting. He is known to have met unexpected late night guests at the door with an old double, but believes no one needs an "EBR."

Conseratives seem to own at least one or two toys in addition to utility guns and their utility guns seem to be a little ?beefier? than the liberals (30/30 instead of 22 or pump shotguns instead of break).

Inside the city limits, conservatives and liberals alike who fit into the "one gun household" category seem to be ashamed of their firearms, usually a single defensive pistol kept ready in the bedroom hidden but in no way secured even if children are around. They don't tell anyone they have them. A few have told me and they always do it in a sort of hush hush look both ways before speaking in a whisper.

Of course these are just personal observations, but as a libertarian I tend to get into level headed discussions with both "liberals" and conservatives since I agree with about half of what each believes and can always go back to an issue of agreement to calm things down, and many I know would consider me their "gun advice guy." I know, that last bit is absolutely terrifying.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old April 2, 2010, 12:54 AM   #18
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,624
This has to be one of those anonymous emails that plops into our in-boxes at regular intervals. The conversion story in which some member of the "Other" group sees the light and joins the "us" group.

The writer is not a liberal and never was one. This might have been based on some tenuous truth but there are far too many flaws in describing liberal ideology.
Although given the current level of in-fighting going on lately it's difficult to say there is a discreet thing called liberal ideology.
But there also this article misses the boat. In classic style the article describes the "other" as monolithic and unreasoning.
It also pops up with a typical "weak man" argument, taking the weakest argument made by the other and claiming it is their major one.

If reading this article makes you feel better about your place in the universe, then by all means buy into it. But it is simple propaganda.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old April 2, 2010, 02:32 AM   #19
2500ak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2010
Posts: 132
I had a roommate from the left coast for a while during my second year at UAF. He defined himself as a liberal but he was a hard worker, took six or seven seven classes a semester and worked full time, very intelligent. He usually didn't get more than a few hours of sleep a night. Worked his ass off.

This account from the original post may be true, but over the course of the time he spent here in Alaska he realized taxes were taking away his hard earned money to support bums, guns weren't scary after all, trucks aren't evil gas-guzzlers, and socialism isn't a wonderful thing but individual freedoms are.

He went back to the east coast, I heard from him this week. He just bought his first AK-47.

Paradigms change. I've never seen someone go liberal, it may happen but I've never seen it. I've known mild liberals who've gone off the deep (communist) end at liberal colleges. On a few occasions I've seen adults and young adults go conservative, but never the other way around.
2500ak is offline  
Old April 2, 2010, 03:43 AM   #20
SigP6Carry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 27, 2009
Posts: 1,086
You know what? I think this article is exactly what the gun community does not need. Why? Because I've been barfing the same old rhetoric, opinion and attitude for years in Feminist History Courses, independent student news papers, blogs, forums, bars, conversations, hookah lounges, gun ranges and anywhere else I can talk:
we don't need a left vs. right or a democrat vs. republican or conservative vs. progressive or pink vs. blue or communist vs. patriot or red vs. blue or anything like that. We need to all just be Americans and debate issues and problems as Americans, instead of as some arbitrary side. The people that hate guns aren't democrats or communists or pinkies or leftists or whatever: the people that hate guns are generally the pig headed and the uneducated. That doesn't mean that the other camp (of which I assume we all belong, which is a much better educated guess than to assume all of us on here are "conservative") doesn't have its pigheaded. We need to unite under issues and specific problems, not some banner that's marked by a political party.

As such, I find this article rather disenchanting. It actually offends me, myself being considered "liberal" by most "conservatives" and "conservative" by most "liberals," to see someone make so many awkward "anti-leftist statements" and leads me to believe it was written by a "conservative under the guise of a liberal."

But my major point is this: who the hell cares if you're left or right, what matters is the issues. You can be pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-welfare and still support troops, as such: you can be pro-life, anti-gun, anti-welfare and still support troops or any combinations of the options. Either way: you're still American. This article just further pigeonholes gun owners as one side vs. the other in the "left vs. right" debate.

So, that's my peace.
__________________
-liberal gun nut = exception to the rule-
-1.24274238 miles, because Russians don't need scopes-
-Gun control was the Klan's favorite law, how can you advocate a set of laws designed to allow the denigration of a people?-
SigP6Carry is offline  
Old April 2, 2010, 07:09 AM   #21
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
My take on this is going to be a little different.

My impression of people here, possibly including myself, is that they aren't exactly conservative but more like going on radical, conservative being a highly elastic term, as is liberal. After all, you don't want conservative gun laws, you want liberal gun laws. Likewise, I don't get the impression that many people here support the police at all, in spite of a lot of them sounding like they'd like to be a policeman. The policeman being an arm of the government. And finally, there is a lot of people here also sound like they think they're victims of something or other.

There's more. When Nixon was president, if you recall, there were references to the "silent majority," and sometimes references to the people in the middle. I don't know if it's good or bad but honestly, I don't think there is anyone in the middle anymore, if there ever was.

And another thing: this business of showing the flag, "supporting the troops," and so on. That's what I call flag waving and amounts to phony patriotism. It costs nothing and does nothing. That American flag decal on the back of your Toyota won't get you into heaven, either. People who support the troops should be buying war bonds, only I'm not sure anyone is selling them. We've still got the ones issued in Richmond.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old April 2, 2010, 08:27 AM   #22
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
A two second Google search, pulls up this, from American Thinker.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 2, 2010, 10:09 AM   #23
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 834
Heh...after reading those essays, I'm astonished that militant Berkeley-ites haven't tarred and feathered "Robin", burned out her psychotherapy office, and ridden her out of Berkeley on a rail!!

She's a psychological insurgent!

Holy Death-From-Within!

__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old April 2, 2010, 10:46 AM   #24
LouPran
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2008
Location: Buried under record fall of "climate change"
Posts: 346
To be fair she admits in this year old article that she's becoming conservative after a life of liberalism.

Her very first article there was this one ... Letter of Amends from a Recovering Liberal in Berkeley

So I'm apt to believe my initial impressions. That she was in fact a life long Liberal, that became Conservative. She also has that former smoker syndrome.

As such, for me personally, the article has merit. As I said earlier, I've known others that had the same attitudes and then later on changed them.

I myself am actually an example of this, so I relate somewhat to her view, albeit from a male perspective. I was very anti-gun all through school years. I grew up in a home that never saw a gun. I wasn't so much liberal, as just centrist, which I still am.

I do not believe she's being intellectually dishonest. Just enthusiastic about her new perspective. It's like someone that discovers religion. They want to tell everyone what they see/know now.
__________________
Aspire to inspire before you expire - the poster formerly known as JP.
LouPran is offline  
Old April 2, 2010, 11:32 AM   #25
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
Upon reading the catalog of stuff that comes up on taking that link to "American Thinker", it seems to me it ought to be called "Neo-Conservative American Non-thinker", but that's redundant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Intrepid
... But I'm acquainted with a fair number of L/L/P intellectuals, and they often demonstrate a trend towards looking at a heinous crime and noting that the perpetrator was a victim as well; a disenfranchised and deprived individual who was structurally channeled to behave as s/he did by the repressive societal structure that exists in the U.S. today. They can explain in great detail the extent to which the perpetrator is a product of a series of external stressors, familial disintegration, economic disparity, and societal marginalization, until the discussion reaches a point where the perpetrators behavior is deeply understood to be a logical product of long-standing systemic failure. In fact, taken to it's extreme, the perpetrators behavior was very nearly pre-determined by this historic and synergistic confluence of causation - to a point where the perpetrator is not really responsible for their own behavior at all. The perpetrator is, rather, a product of their environment; and must be viewed as such.
But that isn't to say they weren't guilty for what they did and thus should escape justice and/or society's actions to protect itself from their behavior. You seem to be claiming that the factors you list are only "excuses" that liberals use to decriminalize anti-social behavior rather than relevant "causes" of it, which they are, and that lacks intellectual integrity because research has shown them to be where criminal attitudes begin; the tacit accusation that liberals excuse such behavior from society's actions to bring justice and/or actions protect itself is also a stereotypically uninformed judgment of liberal ideology.

Are you saying that such an analysis is inaccurate and a pile of liberal baloney and so has no credibility? Then as a conservative, where do you suppose criminal behavior comes from- what causes it? If you say "failure of personal integrity" or "a lack of religion" or some such simplicity and leave it at that, you haven't answered the question in any useful way.

As for the OP- She's a liberal no longer (if she ever was one at all, and I'll bet Berkeley was picked because it was thought to be the epicenter of liberalism about 40 years ago), and not much of a psychologist either, which is probably also a fraud. It sounds way too much like it was written by someone of neo-conservative emotions (I'm reluctant to call them "ideas") and is a sham, a fiction whose purpose is to denigrate "liberal" perspectives for the entertainment of non-liberals in a blatant performance of "preaching to the choir". Only those who hate liberals and really don't objectively understand what they stand for would take it seriously.
Uncle Billy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14724 seconds with 9 queries