How many liberals that you know behave just like this...,?

Question

Double standards depend on demanding from United States and Europe a sort of impossible perfection. When such utopianism is not--and never can be--met, cheap accusations of racism, colonialism, and imperialism follow. Such posturing is intended to con the West into feeling guilty, and, with such self-loathing, granting political concessions, relaxing immigration, or handing over more foreign aid. Left unsaid is that such critics of the West will always ignore their own hypocrisy, and, when convenient, destroy civilized norms while expecting someone else to restore them when needed.

What, then, to do? Stop feeling guilty, apologizing, and trying to rationalize barbarity. Instead insist on the same uniform standards of humane behavior from our critics that they now demand from us.

Finally, remember that there is a reason why millions flood into Europe from the Middle East and to America from Mexico--and not vice versa. There is a reason why Democrats and Republicans don't shoot each other in the streets of Washington, or why blue-state America does not mine red-state highways. And there is a reason why a Shiite mosque in Detroit is safer in the land of the Great Satan than it would be in Muslim Saudi Arabia. It's called civilization--a precious and fragile commodity that is missed even by its destroyers the minute they've done away with it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/civilization.html

That the liberals have fallen into the trap of loathing America, and re-inforcing the thought that America is a bad, evil place and not holding other countries accountable for their actions, only America's

I always give a link when using someone else's thought to make my point.

Answer 1

That entire rant makes no sense. Everyone should be held to a higher standard. We don’t however make policy or define religious beliefs for other countries. If Iranians want to live under a conservative theocracy, I might object on principle but that is their choice. We won’t tolerate it here. If that is a double standard, then I think it’s a sensible one.

Answer 2

Your position requires a certain amount of ignorance, callous hand-wringing or both.
When western corps. are snooping around third world countries and discover oil or other mineral deposits, it's an opportunity to enter into mutually advantageous business agreements. The poor country has resources and the west has the technology to pump out the oil or mine those minerals. Instead, the poor country is not dealing from strength, and the western corp. is utterly motivated by greed. Ultimately, an agreement is reached with the corp. to lease the land and it's deposits dirt cheap at a set price for 50 years or more. 30 years of inflation later, the poor country hasn't received a price adjustment for inflation and they're not sharing in the profits. Billions are being made by the western corps. while the local people are starving. We can argue forever that the poor country's govt., probably a west- installed dictatorship, signed on the dotted line making the agreement legit., but don't be surprised when those local starving people give rise to a group of terrorists who attack the U.S. and Europe. Also, don't be surprised when the leases run out and those angry countries start boosting prices.

Answer 3

I have long said, the main problem with the U.S. is that we try to make everything too perfect. In the process, we generally make a mess of things. When you can find fault with every, single possible aspect of every imaginable action, event, or policy, you don't get a better society, you get chaos.

Liberals seem to feel that, if we could just pass a few more laws, enforce a few more restrictions, make things more "equitable", we'd achieve perfection. All they end up doing is making society unwieldly and unworkable.

Here is my analogy:

Imagine if you had a big dinner party at your home, and "Sally" complains about all the dishes containing meat, because she is a vegetarian.

"Bill" objects to the gold-rimmed wine glasses because gold is sometimes mined by underpaid workers in third world countries.

"Janice" complains that the dinner plates were manufactured by a non eco-friendly company, and demands that her host destroy all the offensive china immediately.

"Ahmed" bitterly denouces his hostess because she is serving wine, which violates the precepts held dear in the Koran. Also, this infidel hostess should be covered from head to toe in a burka, because her exposed calves are an abomination to god.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Just like this dinner party could not even be held, a society cannot function when the legitimacy of absolutely everything is constantly challenged.

Answer 4

Kinda like the conservative spoiled brats that cant settle for roe v wade, so as that they lobby and lobby, and lobby, and spend billions of greenbacks and many ineffective time attempting to overturn a 35+ 3 hundred and sixty 5 days previous ruling. i've got faith they'll act purely such as you're actually.

Answer 5

Blue state America with red state highways. IF the highways are in a blue state then they are blue state highways. IF they are in a red state they are red state highways. The person plowing the snow will not continue past state lines to plow on highways. It's up to the other state to do it, reguardless of both state are the same color or not.
By the way cons are famous for the double standards.

Answer 6

Hmmm...ever thought that the greater the power that western societies (and the USA in particular) wield, the greater should be the moral examination to ensure that they are wielded graciously? The alternative to that is to believe that "might is right" - not a very "civilised" perspective, is it?

I'm not sure what you trying to say. Many of the laudable principles engendered in western societies only arose precisely because of people striving for a better world, if not perfection (which I am sure many people believe is impossible).

Indeed, the USA was founded by people who did not simply accept the state of the world as it was then, and those founders were hugely influenced by people in Europe (such as the Scottish and French rationalist philosophers of the Enlightenment) who did not simply rest on their laurels but analysed and challenged the world around them. In fact, your right to post your question (i.e., the right to free speech) is a direct result of the actions of people in the past who saw imperfections in their society and sought to right them.

The notion that the imperfections of our critics negate our own imperfections is deeply flawed and is based on obfuscation and, yes, guilt, or the desire to be rid of it. It is not an argument but a simple and transparent distraction tactic. As Saul Bellow put it, "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." What you have posted is mere fluff, justification for keeping yourself ignorant.

It is impossible to achieve perfection as a human being - I am sure many people would see, e.g., Jesus as an exception, but then he is held up as the ideal towards which Christians should strive, even if his would be an impossible moral level to attain. Surely you are not arguing that because we cannot be perfect, we should simply stop striving to be as near to perfection as we can be?

A society that has at least in part grown fat from exploiting poorer countries either through colonialism or through taking unfair advantage of their more powerful trading position is, I am sure you would agree, all the more civilized for recognising that fact.
Or are you trying to say that we should now just ignore any injustices we perpetrate because we have become so powerful?

Finally, I'd just like to kick out the last foundation from under the obfuscation you posted. Much of the tumult that you describe all over the world is at least in part the fall-out of western countries interfering in order to try to further their own interests. Many if not all of the benefits you mention of living in western societies are derived from the hard work our ancestors have done in striving for a better world - and from other ancestors of ours exploiting weaker societies (something which is very much still ongoing). The very least you can do is be aware of those facts and not be resentfully and willfully ignorant of them.

As Socrates said, "the unexamined life is not worth living."

PS: and by the way, disagreeing with you does NOT equate to kowtowing to Islamic fundamentalists - quite the opposite; it means drawing strength from the strongest of western principles.

Answer 7

Legitimate nations, throughout the world, have the right to behave as they wish so long as that behavior does not threaten other nations.

Nations can appear to be helpless or aggressive, friendly or arrogant, accountable or carefree, all within their right so long as they do not openly threaten others.

And every nation has the right to re-act as it wishes and to accept the consequences of that re-action.

What does this all have to do with liberals or non-liberals?

Answer 8

Very well written I actually agree with some of what you say. But the liberal point of view is not damaging, it is inspiring. Most people don't understand real politics enough to see past "tax and spend" and "open the borders" that there is a vision of a better America. We don't live in the flaws of the past and try to make them sound ok, we also don't picture Utopia. What real liberals envision is a better, more tolerant and understanding world. The main criticism of conservatives is that we set the goals to high. To me that is like telling your kid "don't plan on amounting to much, we didn't" The idea is that we strive to improve, not concede. To be realistic about our racism and ethnocentricity and not bend rules to make us feel ok about it.

You are a smart person, and clearly educated. Try not to be so black and white about politics, it rarely is so, although your party sometimes paints it as so.

Answer 9

Some of them.

The others are just devil worshiping fools who preach the un-Godly message that donuts are bad for you.

If that was so then why would I be eating one now, huh, why?

Donuts are the backbone of our great nation, was it not Nathan Hale who said, "Give me a donut or give me death?" Was it not Gen. Douglas MacArthur who said on his return to the Philippines, "I have returned, for the donuts."? Was it not Abraham Lincoln who said, " A nation divide on the donut question can not stand." My Fellow Americans can we not all agree that donuts are the bases of all American life and values.
God Bless America and Pass me another Donut.

....mmmmm... donuts..... ..drool... .. ... .

Answer 10

its all natural, if u think of u r self, one days behavior u will find the double standards, even one persons attitude. as far as countries r concern all for some one s moneys they r striving, exploitation continues, ma xploits woman . fellow man, m3en n so on----