What We Can Learn From Liberals

Yes, you embody that fact.

Look in the mirror a lot, do you?

 

You cannot "correct" others' opinions. To change the perception that you're a liberal, you have to "correct" your own actions. Start posting some real materials.

 

If it makes you feel better, I'd be glad to say that an average professor has an IQ of 50. Hapaboy's IQ is higher than that of a professor.

 

Deal.

I'll start changing the perception that I'm a liberal when you start changing the perception that you're a right-wing, neocon, warmongerin', Bush-lovin', Fascism-embracin', gun-ownin', chickenhawk enslaved to the Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/Jewish Cabal that has taken ownership of this country.

I leave you to your daily doses of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Fox News.

 

What makes me feel better is that I have never had the misfortune to be a student in any of your classes.

 

Another moonbat "educator" on the loose:

------------------------------------------

The Left has no answer to London plot
By Mike Gallagher
Friday, August 11, 2006

I had a really weird reaction to the news that British authorities thwarted a massive terror attack on scores of American and British passenger airliners this week. Naturally, I felt a wave of appreciation and pride for the intelligence gathering personnel who managed to head off this latest evil scheme. I was enormously relieved that countless men, women and children were spared a terrible death by the maniacal Islamic extremists hellbent on slaughtering the innocent.

But I immediately wondered what Cindy Sheehan and Ned Lamont are saying now.

U.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan (C), whose military son Casey was killed in Iraq, walks with supporters on the streets of Washington, July 26, 2006. Sheehan's campaign to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq began on a roadside near U.S. President George W. Bush's Texas ranch almost a year ago, and she has already made plans to do the same next month. REUTERS/Jason Reed (UNITED STATES) Lamont beat Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary with a simple, solid, consistent drumbeat of a theme: we need to tuck tail and lose the war in Iraq immediately. No more fighting, forget any progress made in that troubled part of the world, we just need to get out, he says. Now.

When a slick millionaire cable executive is able to articulate that position of failure, it appears that enough Connecticut Democrats will swallow it. Frankly, it does seem mildly appealing, at least to the simple-minded. Who likes hearing about American soldiers coming home in body bags? How many obituaries showing young, fresh faces can we bear to see?

But even a person of limited intelligence and wisdom is able to absorb the events of the past two days and see how foolish and ridiculous Lamont’s position really is.

Somehow, the loony left has managed to convince a fair number of Americans that Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or terrorism. I don’t quite know how they’ve managed to do that. A simple Google search of legitimate, reliable news sources can confirm the miles and miles of irrefutable connections between the bad guys of Iraq and the bad guys of terrorism.

You don’t believe me? Go ahead and look it up. Ask where the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking fled after slaughtering an American named Leon Klinghoffer, way back in 1985. You doubt the connections? Find out where the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing sought – and received – safe harbor. I’ll give you a hint: they were sheltered in a city spelled B-a-g-h-d-a-d.

Furthermore, investigate the mountains of documents confirming meetings between top level Al-Qaeda leaders and high-ranking members of the Iraqi government.

No, the anti-war voices in America are lying when they say there is no connection between Iraq and terrorism. And they know it.

So now that we know that another 9/11-type attack was nearly successful, what could Ned Lamont possibly say?

Cindy Sheehan likes to say that President Bush “killed (her) son.”

Do you think she considers how many sons and daughters would have been killed over American and British skies had this plot not been uncovered? Does she care?

Callers to my radio show today ran the gamut over this latest example of terrorist threats. One man made the perfect analogy, comparing the way we teach our children to stand up to the schoolyard bully to the way the United States is leading the world-wide war on terror. “Every culture understands this concept”, he said. “If the bully is left alone, he never goes away. Ned Lamont and many liberal Democrats think if we leave the terrorists alone, they’ll just peacefully mind their own business, never bothering us again.” I thought his point was terrific.


U.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan (C), whose military son Casey was killed in Iraq, walks with supporters on the streets of Washington, July 26, 2006. Sheehan's campaign to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq began on a roadside near U.S. President George W. Bush's Texas ranch almost a year ago, and she has already made plans to do the same next month. REUTERS/Jason Reed (UNITED STATES) And then there was Amanda.

She was calling from Colorado, and she chastised me for embracing violence as a solution to violence. “You right-wingers love blood and guts and you never have any sympathy for the other side”, she said. “The other side?” I asked. “You mean the terrorists?” She responded with a sneer in her voice: “You just don’t understand. They feel that WE’RE the terrorists. You conservatives are wrong in defining this war as something between good and evil.”

I had just about had enough. “Amanda, let me ask you something”, I said. “Do you consider the 19 hijackers of 9/11 evil?” Long pause. “No, I do not,” she replied. “We should look at ourselves to discover what we did to make them hate us so much. This is all our fault.”

Make no mistake, this woman was serious. I actually told her I hoped she was a comedienne, someone making a prank call to a national radio show. She assured me that she was not. So I had to ask her what she did for a living. Her answer will haunt me for a long, long time: “I’m a schoolteacher.”

This war is so complicated because we are fighting an entity that is all over the world, an enemy with no geographical boundaries. It’s also tough because we all know that it’s a war that will be fought for many, many generations.

But most of all, it’s so difficult because not every one of our enemies are named Ahmed and Muhammad and Abdul.

Some of America’s enemies in this war are named Ned. And Cindy. And Amanda.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...on_plot&ns=MikeGallagher&dt=08/11/2006&page=1

 

The real problem is, it is as difficult to find a true liberal as it is to find a true conservative. The fanatics on both sides have taken control of their respective parties. The original post would be appropriate to both sides of the radical left/right, except for the rhyming. That's absolutely left.

 

Liberals and Christians are mutually exclusive.

1. Liberals favor a welfare state; Christians call for private charity.

2. Liberals call for the strict separation of Church and state; Some Christians find prayer and religious displays in public (tax payer supported places) OK.

3. Liberals favor abortion on demand; Christians see abortion as murder.

4. Liberals support a right to engage in sodomy; Christians see sodomy as sin.

 

Sodomy is a sin???? Crap!

 

These are not mutually exclusive. Strict separation of Church and state is stated in the Constitution and is supported by Liberals and Christians alike. And the reason "Some Christians find prayer and religious displays in public (tax payer supported places) OK" (but not ALL) is because people may disagree on whether this violates the separation of Church and state. In other words, even those who support public prayers, are not objecting to our Constitution (at least I hope they're not).