This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

More Probing of the Liberal Psyche

Because a number of liberals comment on this blog, some of my posts have to do with trying to understand them. Liberals are clueless. How did they get that way?

The following article in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal is very insightful and although long, is well worth studying.
WALL STREET JOURNAL

45 comments:

Liberal POV said...

Blogger

The writer of your post seems to have taken some liberty with his stereotypes.
While I may agree there are the three groups many in the personal gain group are the people that make up Pimps, drug dealers, con artist, arms dealers, welfare cheats, thieves, corrupt Political leaders just to name a few.
Kinda like you with medicare you got yours and the hell with everyone else in need of affordable health care.

The group in the middle can find their self interest motivated by excess greed from the personal grain group unless they're receiving a reasonable share of the bootie.

Those in the liberal paradigm are often successful business people that are compelled to do the right thing by those that made his or her wealth possible.
Lowes Hardware was willed to the employees when the owner died leaving them one small town hardware store in North Wilkesboro, NC. Look at what it is today. What better legacy could this man have left? Thousands of employees have retired wealthy not just one family of super rich.
This group also includes those with very little means that take spend hours volunteering, or kids that will pool their money to buy grandpa an Ice cream cone. This group does tend to see a bigger picture. These are the people that pick up the trash personal gain group throws on the street or pushes the shopping cart out of the middle of the parking lot group one left after loading his or her car.

guy faulkes said...

POV, your disdain for those that actually produce, take responsibility for themselves, want to control the fruits of their labor, and oppose government intervention into the individuals lives is incredible. I may have to rethink my opinion of you. I used to think you were a socialist that supported terrorists. I am beginning to believe I was mistaken and that you are a communist that supports terrorists.

Sarkazein said...

Pelosi Breaks Pledge to Put Final Health Care Bill Online for 72 Hours Before Vote

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the speaker will not allow the final language of the health care to be posted online for 72 hours before bringing the bill to a vote on the House floor, despite her September 24 statement that she was "absolutely" committed to doing so.///


The liberal psyche excuses liars. Go ahead POV.

Honest Debate said...

Great article blogger. I give a nod to Johnny Rico/ USS Roger Young who addresses LiberalPOV as a socialist "sheep".

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Lets see if I understand you.

You and maybe other conservatives here are opposed to any sort of collective efforts for the common good of all.
That would include the family unit to pool resources to buy a house, farm, or start a business?
That would include a churchgroup working together to build a new church?
You would not want to donate time or money for a rural community fire department or ball field for community recreation?
Does this also include local tax dollars for EMS, local schools and education, Libraries, police and fire protection?
How about the common good of roads and bridges, public water and sewer is that socialism or communism?

How about the care of prisoners who should pay for that and how do you raise the funds? We got a lot of them and conservatives want more and longer sentences.

Is it communism to believe we should care for the elderly, children or the ill and injured?

What's the story of Wall Street getting H1N1 flu vaccine before those pregnant mothers and children standing in line? Is that just good capitalism?

Which of the three groups do you belong in?

Honest Debate said...

"You and maybe other conservatives here are opposed to any sort of collective efforts for the common good of all." -LiberalPOV

That's as far as I got lib. That absurd statement rendered the rest of your post meaningless. Try again.

guy faulkes said...

POV, it is getting to the point that you have to realize how ridiculous you are. You are now equating infrastructure with your political objective to take one person's money and give it to another. It does not matter how one creates this infrastructure. It can be done privately. My choosing to donate to charities that care for the elderly, the young, etc. is one thing. The state stealing what is mine and giving it to people that are fully capable of providing for themselves is another.

Are you the recipient of an entitlement program and do not want to work, or are you a power broker that wants these entitlement programs in order to keep yourself in power politically?

Blogger said...

PV you wrote: "The writer of your post seems to have taken some liberty with his stereotypes"

Funny POV, I actually had you in mind when I read the article. You are our poster child of a Liberal and this article explains why you have lost your way.

BikerBard said...

Liberal POV:
You see, YOU have lost your way. Only the true believers in HIM (and I do mean Sark) can enter the kingdom of the self-righteousness and the Party of "No." Only the true believers, the anti-everything people, the Teabag Queens, the kill the immigrants, immigrants, the sockpuppets of the world, can enter the kingdom of Sark. Amen and amen I say unto you.

Anonymous said...

Has BikerBaird ever made a point that could be talked about? It looks like all he does is attack people. He is just a whine-o. He probably sleeps under a bridge. He even makes Liberal POV look smart. That takes some doing.

Wolf's Head said...

I've been wondering where liberal POV got his nom de blog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_view_pornography

Sarkazein said...

RV is mentioned prominently in the column also.

Sarkazein said...

Notice it is the Louisiana Attorney General's Office raiding the ACORN office and not Eric Hussein Holder.

Holder is too busy going after CIA agents. Remember Clinton's AG Office went after Hooters and not Osama.

RV said...

Wolf's Head, your link tells us more about you than about POV or RV.

Anonymous said...

Ooo, third person. Nice.

RV said...

What about all the people who cannot afford health insurance on their minimum wage job? They are taking the chance that they and their children won't get sick. These are the people I worry about. They are trapped in a situation with no way out. They have to work two jobs just to get by, so there is no time left to go to school and better themselves.

I also worry about older Americans who are not able to retire, but they have lost their job and now no one will hire them because of their age.

Then there are the poor unfortunate souls who develop a serious illness and have to go bankrupt, even though they had health insurance.

I know some of these people, and they are not bad people. They need some help, at least temporarily.

Honest Debate said...

"What about all the people who cannot afford health insurance on their minimum wage job? They are taking the chance that they and their children won't get sick." -RV

Why on earth would anyone start a family if they didn't have enough skills to earn more than minimum wage?

I'm not trying to be glib, I'm really not. RV, I do appreciate that at least you're not saying those opposing Obama's health care debacle don't care for their fellow man. It's plain to me that because the Democrats are shutting out Republicans and trying to push through this vote, they are not interested in solving the problems as mush as they are in growing government. I just saw an interesting debate on MSNBC. The Republican mentioned tort reform and Chris Matthews said, that will never happen because the Democrats are in bed with the trial lawyers. Howard dean said the same thing a while back. It's undeniably true. Shouldn't tort reform at least be a part of the discussion? Ditto portability. For 1.2 trillion we could buy every man, woman and child health insurance in the private sector and have hundreds of billions to spare. That is telling. I have an idea, give me a dollar for dollar tax credit for buying health insurance for you. There are many good ideas out there and a wealthy nation like ours can do more but this debate going on is not honest. Remember, Democrats have the votes if united. There's nothing Republicans can do to stop them. If not for the voice of average Americans this would have been over by now. It's not.

bridle said...

HD - You ask why anyone would start a family if they cannot afford it? Umm... because 5 million years of evolution have shaped human behavior to have sex often and rather promiscuously. You see, the sex drive is strong enough to overpower rational thought, and birth control is often not available (thanks to abstinence only education), not effective (thanks to biology) or people are afraid to use it, (thanks to religion). So biology drives us to reproduce even if we know it's not a good idea. And of course once a woman gets pregnant, people such as yourself are all about not allowing her to take control of her body and her future because, after all, she asked for it.
Of course sometimes they can afford kids until they get divorced, or sick, or lose their jobs, or the breadwinner dies.
Tough luck for them. Because why should you care if someone else's little kids suffer and die from lack of health care. It's not your problem, is it?

BikerBard said...

Anonymous:
(what a clever nom de blog)

I made my point. The problem is that you are not smart enough to understand it. I will spell it out for you.

Liberal POV = BAD
All other AWC bloggers = GOOD

This is your very narrow and warped viewpoint. Get it now?

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

You don't have a clue about my views on abortion or birth control or many issues. It's news to me that telling children abstinence works every single time to prevent pregnancy has made birth control unavailable. What was that vending machine in the truck stop bathroom for anyway?

Does personal responsibility exist in your world or is EVERYONE a victim?

bridle said...

I didn't put words in your mouth. I only answered your question about why people have children they can't "afford". And for your information, abstinence only education means not telling kids about how to obtain or use birth control. In other words - deliberately keeping them ignorant.
And I do believe in personal responsibility. It is my responsibility and that of every citizen to realize that our society depends on mutual cooperation and obligations.
Do you not realize how much of your good fortune is due to luck? Without a stable secure society, and all the safety nets and regulations, you would be just another Somalian anarchist reduced to piracy to survive.

Honest Debate said...

Dang Bridle, are you serious? I can't tell.

"abstinence only education means not telling kids about how to obtain or use birth control"

RV said...

That is what it means, HD. People who preach abstinence only feel that telling children about birth control is giving them permission to have sex.

RV said...

So true, Bridle. People in the US have grown so accustomed to stability that they don't realize what society would be like without the regulations and "government interference". We pay a price, but isn't it worth it?

Honest Debate said...

"People who preach abstinence only feel that telling children about birth control is giving them permission to have sex." -RV

I guess you guys are serious, wow.

No, I think we feel that giving condoms to 7th graders without parental consent is giving permission. I learned about the birds and bees from my parents, not in school. What's wrong with that? Let me guess, parents aren't capable of properly rearing their children so public schools (government) needs to over ride them, give them condoms and never mention abstinence.

bridle said...

HD - In fact there are many things parents can't teach their children. Many parents are not knowledgeable about how the human body functions, how to use contraceptives, or what the efficacy of various techniques may be. If school can teach math, physics, social studies, why shouldn't they teach basic human biology?
Many parents don't communicate with their kids. I always wonder about abstinence only education. If folks can't learn about contraception in school, and their parents can't or don't give them a comprehensive lesson, where are they supposed to learn about it? In the good old fashioned gutter?
Look at the data. Abstinence-only education correlates with high teenage pregnancy rates.
http://www.statesman.com/services/content/news/stories/local/2009/09/27/0927abstinence.html?cxtype=ynews_rss

bridle said...

HD - Please don't create straw men arguments. No one ever suggested that sex education should encourage teen-age sexual activity. Abstinence is clearly the best way to avoid pregnancy, disease, and scandal. But we need to recognize that even adult high-ranking politicians who have everything to lose are often unable to be abstinent. All I'm saying is that everyone deserves a comprehensive education. Ignorance is not good for kids or society.

Reader said...

"Are you the recipient of an entitlement program and do not want to work, or are you a power broker that wants these entitlement programs in order to keep yourself in power politically?"

Guy, I feel the same. If you notice Lib didn't respond, so I will take that as a yes. It's been clear since day one reading his posts. He's a "give me" person.

The liberals live in their own world, what can you do for me?
I'm at my point in life, not very much. I'm tired and running out of money to do anything. Usually there comes a time in ones life to eat solid food. Liberals still haven't given up the baby bottle.

Honest Debate said...

"No one ever suggested that sex education should encourage teen-age sexual activity." -Bridle

They're saying we are saying it.

"People who preach abstinence only feel that telling children about birth control is giving them permission to have sex." -RV

Honest Debate said...

We just disagree Bridle.

"But we need to recognize that even adult high-ranking politicians who have everything to lose are often unable to be abstinent."

I reject that, they are completely able they choose to be lying cheaters.

"All I'm saying is that everyone deserves a comprehensive education. Ignorance is not good for kids or society."

I agree wholeheartedly but it's not the school's job to be parents.

When I was in the seventh grade we had sex education. We had to get a permission slip signed by our parents first. Then those with parental consent were carted down to the gymnasium and shown very graphic photos of very diseased genitals. No one gave us condoms or assumed we were sexually active.

bridle said...

If we just disagree, don't you think that kids should have access to comprehensive sex education in school with an opt-out choice for parents?
And doesn't it strike you as being bizarre to show kids diseased genitals? The idea is not to give them complexes, is it? I know someone who was so traumatized by his Catholic education (sex is sinful and dirty) that at age 55 he is unable to have normal relations with anyone. Abstinence only advocates might count that as a success, but I don't.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

The if the parents know the curricula and can opt out then I have no problem. Is that the case?

The message that I got was sex is very risky. It is much riskier now, we didn't have AIDS back then. I was not traumatized at all, at least not permanently.

bridle said...

I had a very liberal sex education curriculum in school. My 7th grade teacher told us everything and we could ask any question without fear. And our parents could keep us out if they so chose. Just like calculus education only much much more interesting and useful.

Sarkazein said...

My fear was ending up at the business end of her daddy's shotgun, and probably getting thrown out at third base.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

Really? "... complexes, is it? I know someone who was so traumatized by his Catholic education ..."-Bridle

All my life, the big families (lots of kids) were Catholic.

RV said...

I never received any sex education at school, but I did have a short session at church that focused on the shame and humiliation of pregnancy. My parents did not give me any information until my mid-teens. By then I had learned a lot from my research in graphic novels. I also received some twisted up information from friends. I think a down-to-earth presentation of the facts would have been a big help.

Honest Debate said...

How did a discussion about "probing" liberals devolve to sex education? er...ugh...never mind.

RV said...

"People who preach abstinence only feel that telling children about birth control is giving them permission to have sex." -RV

I didn't say that very well. What I meant was that people who preach abstinence only don't want to give the impression that there are any other options. It is a nice idea, but it is totally unrealistic.

Anonymous said...

Just like many people, you don't want to talk about it, HD.

Honest Debate said...

"Just like many people, you don't want to talk about it, HD." -Nonny (if that's his real name)

Huh? Disregard my last 1/2 dozen plus post...nevermind, you already did.

Sarkazein said...

"I never received any sex education at school, but I did have a short session at church that focused on the shame and humiliation of pregnancy"-RV

Of course the deceptive liberal will leave out the "un-wed" part of the story, but not to worry... the Clinton Era officially ended shame.

Blogger said...

Honest Debate asked ..

How did a discussion about "probing" liberals devolve to sex education? er...ugh...never mind.

In psychotherapy, when someone switches rapidly away from a topic that is hitting to close to home, it is called displacement. The therapist then knows that the subject being run from is exactly what needs to be talked about.

RV said...

Blogger, do you mean the subject of sex education, which HD seems to find so "ugh" distasteful, or the subject of the liberal psyche, which you think some of us are running from?

I object to the classification of people into just three groups - wolves, sheep, and shepherds. There is another group - people in trouble. And believe it or not, they can come from any of the three groups. Liberals are not "give me" people, but they are "help those who need help" people.

When I mentioned people with children who cannot afford to buy health insurance or pay for educational opportunities because they are working low paying jobs, HD came back with the idea that people should not get themselves into that situation to begin with. That was when the topic turned to the issue of sex education.

Now are we back on track?

Sarkazein said...

" Liberals are not "give me" people, but they are "help those who need help" people."-RV

ABSOLUTELY WRONG RV! sorry to have to yell at you like that, BUT you/they (liberals) are have the GOVERNMENT help those who need it. Often to the point of ruin of those "helped". You always leave a key word out of your declarations.

Honest Debate said...

RV,

What I find distasteful is public schools (government) usurping parents. See my comment to Bridle.

What I find ridiculous beyond explanation is the idea that without this usurping all the kids will propagate.

If I was one of the "people in trouble" the last thing I'd want to see is wolves ready to pounce or shepherds trying to turn me into a sheep.