Interesting reading.

http://www.lucianne.com/t...num=494881

"You got it, Frank. There is no arguing with liberals because there's no reasoning. And they feel so morally superior too; that's the really annoying part."

Amazing. Just amazing.

I thought ticks were not capable of intelligent thought and therefore probably of a more conservative persuasion, like the initiator of (and other commentators on) this thread.

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (9/20/2009)]

Liberals tend to think for themselves which is why we don't need to listen to a Glenn or a Rush or a Sean for hours every day and then parrot them whenever there is debate.

Liberals believe that integrity needs to be part of the big picture which is why torture and wars for oil don't work for us. Yes, it may raise the bottom line where money and power are concerned but we are more focused on justice, compassion, making the world a better place, and the value of each human being. You see, we are the kind of people who cannot sleep at night just because our pillow is lined with money, if we know we did not treat people right in the process.

I find it interesting that the right seems to feel that most Democrats act from their feelings and not their intellect and reason. One only has to attend a health reform meeting or watch Glenn Beck to find the right's version of rationality.

If you want interesting reading, Heath, try Moral Politics by George Lakoff. If you can figure out the three-syllable words, you may find that it's more enlightening than the cereal boxes to which you're accustomed.

Brian, there are several words we might need to translate for Heath so he can make heads or tails of your post. (I know "reading" is not three-syllables, but I thought a definition would help.)

interesting: pretty

reading: being able to make out those marks on the pages

Politics: good old boys doing favors for each other

three-syllable: really hard words from chapter books

enlightening: a new, really neat thought

cereal: Cocoa Puffs

accustomed: things we do every day, like brush our teeth and comb our hair

Thought you would all enjoy that.

Brian,

Lakoff? Mr. Metaphor? No thanks. He is a misguided leftist.

And you call yourself openminded, Heath? Weak.

Did you get your opinion of him directly from Culture Warrior?

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (9/21/2009)]

C'mon, Brian. You're referencing a guy who claims that, "Mathematics may or may not be out there in the world, but there's no way that we scientifically could possibly tell."

Some of his concepts are interesting, but he is way too far left to be, as you say, "enlightening," politically.

Some of his concepts are interesting, but he is way too far left to be, as you say, "enlightening," politically.

Do you believe it's only possible for a person to be enlightening if he or she is to the far right?

Brian,

Webster's:

* Main Entry: en·light·en
* Pronunciation: \in-'li-t?n, en- * Function: transitive verb
* Inflected Form(s): en·light·ened; en·light·en·ing \-'lit-ni?, -t?n-i? * Date: 1587

1 archaic : illuminate
2 a : to furnish knowledge to : instruct <enlightened us about the problem> b : to give spiritual insight to

With regard to Lakoff, I believe his concepts are enlightening to some, just as some on the right believe Nozick or Oakeshott are enlightening.

Do you believe it's only possible for a person to be enlightening if he or she is to the far right?

I normally choose not to spend my time with liberal leftist literature. Even if it is cloaked in fun and whacky metaphoric rhetoric. I would rather read Karl Popper.

You read Karl Popper The Open Society and Its Enemies and I will read your Lakoff suggestion. We will then see who is more enlightened, after.

[This message has been edited by Heath H (9/21/2009)]

I am having a difficult time with you dismissing something that you haven't read as "leftist," Heath.

It smacks of willful ignorance (and I'm not one of those people who believes willful ignorance to be a virtue).

It's easy to criticize something if all you're doing is puppeting the opinions of others who have demonized it for having run counter to their personal agenda.

When I read Culture Warrior, by Bill O'Reilly, I wasn't surprised to see him criticize George Lakoff. Lakoff, after all, doesn't share O'Reilly's worldview (thereby making him O'Reilly's enemy).

I was surprised that O'Reilly didn't even seem to have read Lakoff's books. His descriptions of them were little more than one would get from skimming a dust jacket. If you're willing to do better than that, Heath, I'll be happy to read the book you've suggested.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (9/21/2009)]

And what have you learned from Mr. Popper?

Doesn't being blue automatically make him a Liberal?

Brian,

Since you have read Lakoff's Moral Politics and I have not, let's simply look to what bio info there is out there on the old Internets concerning Mr. Lakoff.

Now, tell me why you think he would, as a self professed liberal Democrat, produce a work titled Moral Politics and that work would be anything other than pro-leftist?

I will read it if you will read Nozick, or Popper.

Keep in mind that Moral Politics was first published in 1996. He didn't develop what I'd call an obvious slant until his later works, particularly Don't Think of an Elephant.

Another thing worth noting is that Lakoff never claimed to be completely without an agenda. He explains the conservative and liberal worldviews and then states why the latter works best for him.

I appreciate his honesty (it's a lot better than having a bias and claiming not to, like Fox News).

Yuck!

I am very much a liberal person...

...with how much coffee I pour in my cup...

and

..with how much shampoo I use.. (so I dont need to repeat after I rinse)

More than ticking, it seems to me that liberals just "tock".