Stuart Schneiderman
About Me
Posts
Donate to this blog via Paypal.
Labels
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(597)
-
▼
December
(49)
- Feeling Bored?
- Predicting the Past?
- "Is Bigger Better?"
- Does True Love Wait?
- Annals of Bad Sex Advice
- "Carefully Chosen Words"
- Medical Tourism in Havana?
- Frank Rich Misses the '50s
- Exercise is Also Good for Your Children
- Bernard Madoff vs. John Gotti
- The Benefits of Exercise
- God to the Rescue
- A Feminist Alone at the Top
- How to Keep Your New Year's Resolutions
- 'New York Times Under Fire for Controversial 'Vows'"
- Collateral Damage
- True Love in the New York Times
- "Have Feminists Gotten It All Wrong?"
- Beautiful Women Are Dangerous
- The Carnival of Negative Emotions
- Michael Moore Banned in Cuba
- Mark Madoff, R. I. P.
- Feminists Against Women's Rights
- "The Man Repeller"
- The Right Kind of Anger
- Barack Obama: Writer in Chief?
- Mao's Great Famine
- TIME's Person of the Year
- "So You Want to Be a Journalist"
- Public Displays of Anger
- Invisible Support
- Ivy League Incest
- David Rosenberg Looks toward 2011
- Is It Time to Get Rid of Narcissism?
- No title
- Your Inner Samurai Warrior
- Jim Rogers Explains the World's Financial Crises
- Paul McCartney and Chris Christie Celebrate Chanukah
- The Company They Keep
- What Women Don't Want
- "Hostage Takers"
- Barack Obama vs. Chris Christie
- No title
- Art as Shock Therapy
- The Apologetic Sex
- The Civility Trap
- Sorry, But You Can't Have It All
- Looking for Your Inner Truth
- "Americans Vote for Pride"
-
▼
December
(49)
4 comments:
to call Brooks serious conservative may be a stretch ... more of a moderate ... just becasue he gets labeled "conservative" by the NYT hardly is a ringing endorsement ...
If you ask the folks at NRO they would never call him as serious conservative ...
sorry for the poor spelling ... haste makes for a poor editor ...
Point well taken. I agree that Brooks is barely a conservative, but I stretched the issue because it served the purposes of the counterpoint....
Obama's error was that he compromised with evil.
I have, after years of scratching my head over the antics of liberals, concluded that they view themselves as the most righteous of humans. When someone, like maybe a conservative, begins to analyze a liberal's proposal, the very fact of not immediately accepting the goodness of the proposal exposes the conservative's evil. "The bastard does not see me as the good person I am for having good thoughts." So, the liberal hears the argument but does not really listen and absorb the content. He takes the criticism as not well meaning. As a result, there is and can be no real communication between true liberals and otherwise sane people.
Obama is a true liberal. When he is forced to deal with Republicans he feels in his heart (and it is evident from his body language and facial expressions) that they are evil and stupid. They are stupid for even questioning his good proposals. The very idea that one can be dismissed as stupid for asking questions begs the point. The liberal is driven by emotions and not objective reality. How dare they question the economic impact of MY health care plan?
To put the lie to the goodness of liberals one only has to ask why they never clean up their messes. But, this also misses the point. Liberals live in the moment and demand to be adored for their having the ability to think good thoughts. They have no past and refuse to acknowledge the damage they cause. The excuse is always something like, look who was put in charge, or we did not spend enough, or similar tripe. Unless Obama has one of those revalatory moments, where he actually questions his motives and begins to understand that not all he proposes is sweetness and light (which will not happen) he will remain constitutionally incapable of compromise.
Good article.
Steve G
Post a Comment