Tropical_Man's Blog

forgot login?
Languages
Help

Bringing people together in love and faith

My Blog

Blogs > Tropical_Man > Mercy

Mercy

Hope

Exploring Psychology and Meds

Apologetics

The Rest of the Gospel

Names of International scammers

Title View |

Moral Relativism

Mar 28, 2008 1:15 am
99 Views

by Sean

The Decline of the Liberal Left
Moral Relativism, also known as Situational Ethics, is what has caused the decline of the Liberal Left. It began with the with the idea that "Nothing is always right or always wrong." Ironically, this is an idea that they feel is always right. It is, however, an idea that is easily proved wrong. For example, it's always wrong to oppress people, or to commit genocide.

Moral Relativity has been combined with several other ideas to create what we think of as the modern liberal. Here is the way it went:

In the nineteen-sixties the idea that we should tolerate each others differences (at that time primarily racial differences) was pushed hard in schools and the media. This was, and is, a noble idea. It was referred to as "Racial Tolerance."

Racial Tolerance gradually became simply "Tolerance," and began to include under it's umbrella tolerance for other cultures, nationalities, religions and forms of sexuality. Still a laudable concept. Our Declaration of Independence begins with it, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

The idea of "Tolerance" began to meld with the idea that "Nothing is always right or always wrong" and became "Nothing of ours is better than something of theirs" and then more recently mutated into "Nothing of ours is ever as good as anything of theirs."

This can be seen today in the fact that the Left is only upset by the use of force when it is the U.S. using force. In the fact that, if the U.S. has a vested interest in the use of force, it is unacceptable to the Left, but if there is no benefit to the U.S. at all the use of force is mandatory. Take, for example the difference in the Left's resistance to the use military force in Iraq (How dare you?) and their desire for the use of force in Liberia (How dare you not?). In Iraq we have many vested interests, in Liberia none.

It can also be seen in the drive to multi-nationalism and the desire to subjugate the will of the U.S. to the will of the United Nations. They believe that only other nations could be fair and impartial enough to decide whether the U.S. is threatened enough to require the use of force to protect itself. They believe that only other nations could be fair and impartial enough to try Saddam Hussein for his crimes against the Iraqis. The U.S. is, in their eyes, incapable of the exercise of power or judgment in any way other than bullying self-interest.

It can be seen in the Left's approach to Abortion. Does this sound familiar: "I don't believe in it myself, I think it's horrible, but who am I to tell other people what to think?" They can't see that there is an absolute involved; that Killing is bad, and should only be done to protect yourself and others from people who will not be dissuaded in any other way.

They also believe that the Government is better suited to taking care of us than we are ourselves. In this case the Government is the "other" who's "everything" is better than our own.

Our culture is not as good as Europe's, our leaders are not as smart as the United Nations, our medical system is not as good as Canada's. Our fill-in-the-blank is not as good as their fill-in-the-blank. In an all-out war they believe that the enemy has a greater right to defend themselves than we do.

What it comes down to is that they don't believe our culture/country/lives are worth fighting for because they aren't worth a darn. Because nothing of ours is ever as good as anything of theirs.

It is mental madness.Watch out for the dangerous mental incapabilities of the morally corrupt Liberal mindset.

0 Comments

It starts at Childhood

Mar 28, 2008 1:08 am
102 Views

"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says.

"When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

0 Comments

What do you call a person that....

Mar 28, 2008 1:02 am
175 Views

5 Comments, 2 votes

Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts

Mar 28, 2008 12:55 am
117 Views

2008 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

2 Comments

Winston Churchill quotes

Mar 27, 2008 4:41 pm
115 Views

We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

There is no such thing as a good tax.

Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile—hoping it will eat him last.

The problems of victory are more agreeable than the problems of defeat, but they are no less difficult.

From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I shall not put.

You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.

If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law.

The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong.

0 Comments

Smart Responce to a Walking (barely) person	Mar 27, 2008 7:48 am 286 Views
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Delusional does not mean you can not push buttons. Yes he is delusional.Yes real facts are not important. The real facts destroy his stories. Thats understandable... its just how Liberals are. a sad lot they are
	10 Comments

Indoctrinate University

Mar 27, 2008 7:08 am
124 Views

GLENN BECK PROGRAM
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

GLENN: I've told you for a while I don't believe that any society has ever gotten more tolerant. They just change targets. I read that quote, what, about two months ago? And I think it is the best quote I've heard in I don't know how long. No society has ever gotten more tolerant. They just change targets.

Well, I've got two stories for you. One is from the conservatives down at the University of Florida, and I have the poster or the little flier they handed out. It just says radical Islam wants you dead. Obsession, movie. Radical Islam's war against the West. Screening at UF on Tuesday, November 13th at the Union movie theater, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, sponsored by the college law school Republicans, and the Jewish law school association. For more information e-mail obsessionUF at gmail, okay? That's all it says. Well, the university went crazy because Muslims said they were afraid to be on campus because of this. This was creating a hostile environment for the Muslims on campus. Well, it shouldn't. You should be able to unite against radical Islam, but we have live in such a politically correct world that you can't say that. You can't say, hang on, which are the radical Islamists here? Which are the ones that want me dead and which are the ones that want to live side by side as a good neighbor. I'd like to know that, but we can't ask that question. We can't discuss it, which leaves us into a place to where you don't know how. That should cause fear and it should cause fear in the Muslim community as well as the non-Muslim community because I got news for you. If you're not Muslim enough, you're a target. In today's America if you're not Christian enough, you're a target. Let's stop with this stuff.

Well, the university issued a letter and demanded an apology from this student group. Well, now things have changed just a bit and one of the guys who helped make this change is on the phone with us. He is from the house of representatives. His name is Adam Hasner. He is down in Florida.

2 Comments

Saddam's Salesmen	Mar 27, 2008 6:46 am 138 Views
by Ben Johnson Frontpagemag Thursday, March 27, 2008 “If being used means that we’re highlighting the suffering of Iraqi children, or any children, then yes, we don’t mind being used.” – Rep. James McDermott, D-WA, on his 2002 trip to Iraq, financed by Saddam Hussein. We’ve long contended the terrorists could not buy better representation than the Democratic Left gives them for free. We never knew how right we were. The media revealed last night that Saddam Hussein personally funded the trip of three Democratic Congressmen to Iraq on the eve of the war that led to his ouster. Saddam’s Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) reportedly bribed an American Muslim activist with two million barrels of oil to arrange the fall 2002 trip for left-wing Congressmen Jim McDermott, D-WA; David Bonior, D-MI; and Mike Thompson, D-CA. David Horowitz and I thoroughly chronicled the event in our new book, Party of Defeat. On September 29, 2002, the ignominious trio appeared on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, via satellite hookup from foreign soil, to extol the truthfulness of Saddam Hussein, decry the already weakened sanctions imposed by the United Nations, and call President Bush a liar bent on war. David Bonior – who long served as House Democratic Whip, the second-highest ranking post in the House of Representatives – laid the blame squarely on the United States of America. Bonior denounced the regimen of multilateral sanctions, already weakened by the Oil for Food program, as “barbaric” and “horrific.” He backed this up with anecdotal evidence gleaned from the group’s well-supervised tour of Iraqi hospitals. Worse, the U.S. had been “trying to push and dictate” Iraq, namely by requiring its dictator verify his compliance with the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War and the 17 UN resolutions he was currently defying. Although Saddam Hussein had frustrated all previous weapons inspections, Bonior blithely announced that he would now allow inspectors the “unrestricted” autonomy “to look anywhere.” (Of course, the inspectors’ job was not to play hide-and-seek with Iraq’s prewar WMD cache; it was to verify that he had destroyed all WMDs, as he had agreed to do as a precondition of peace in 1991.) Rep. James McDermott echoed that none of the arms imbroglio was the Iraqi regime’s fault, anyway, as “Iraq did not drive the inspectors out; we took them out.” Again, the United States was blaming the victim and punishing innocent children for her own misdeeds. When pressed about believing the promises of a murderous international pariah, McDermott said, “I think you have to take the Iraqis at their face value,” but he offered no such quarter to the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. “I think the president would mislead the American people,” he declared. On the eve of the war, three sitting U.S. Congressmen treated Saddam Hussein as President Bush’s moral superior. The Iraqi media multiplied the propaganda value of their visit. The Iraq Satellite Channel reported that the three were scheduled to “visit hospitals to see the suffering caused by the unjust embargo.” Yet the three expressed no regrets for acting as Saddam’s stooges. Jim McDermott told CNN’s Jane Arraf, “If being used means that we’re highlighting the suffering of Iraqi children, or any children, then yes, we don’t mind being used.”
	3 Comments

Symposium: From Russia With Death

Mar 27, 2008 6:11 am
172 Views

By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine

As the British investigation ensues into the death of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, fingers of blame point at President Vladimir Putin. Litvinenko himself accused Putin of killing him before he died. The Russian President, meanwhile, is casting blame on Russian London exiles, including billionaire businessman Boris Berezovsky, for Litvinenko’s murder.

These horrid events were preceded by the murder of Russian journalist and Putin critic Anna Politkovskaya. Meanwhile, the doctors who are treating Yegor Gaidar, former Russian prime minister and Putin critic, believe he was poisoned.

While Putin remains the primary suspect behind the Litvinenko murder, there is talk of a larger conspiracy that aims to discredit the Russian President.

How do we make sense out of all these disturbing and mysterious events? Who killed Litvinenko? What danger did he pose to Putin? Who profits most from this former spy’s murder? And how nasty has the Putin government become? How far is it willing to go to resuscitate Stalinist tactics? And if Putin turns out to have murdered Litvinenko, a British citizen, on British soil, what must Britain -- and all Western governments -- do?

To discuss all of these events with us, Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distinguished panel. Our guests are:

Oleg Kalugin, a retired Major General of the Soviet KGB.

Richard Pipes, a Professor Emeritus at Harvard who is one of the world's leading authorities on Soviet history. He is the author of 19 books, the most recent being his new autobiography Vixi: Memoirs of a Non-Belonger.

Vladimir Bukovsky, a former leading Soviet dissident who spent twelve years in Soviet prisons, labor camps and psychiatric hospitals for his fight for freedom. His works include To Build a Castle and Judgement in Moscow.

Jim Woolsey, director of the CIA from 1993-95 and a former Navy undersecretary and arms-control negotiator.

Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the former acting chief of Communist Romania’s espionage service. He is the highest ranking official ever to have defected from the Soviet bloc. He is author of Red Horizons, republished in 27 countries. In 1989, Ceausescu and his wife were executed at the end of a trial where most of the accusations had come word-for-word out of Pacepa's book.

David Satter, a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). He is the author of Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State.

Yuri Yarim-Agaev, a former leading Russian dissident and a member of the Moscow Helsinki Group. Upon arriving in the United States after his forced exile from the Soviet Union, he headed the New York-based Center for Democracy in the USSR.

Andrei Piontkovsky, a member of International PEN-club, currently a Hudson Institute Visiting Fellow and author of Another Look into Putin’s Soul (Hudson.2006).

FP: Oleg Kalugin, Richard Pipes, Vladimir Bukovsky, Jim Woolsey, Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, David Satter, Yuri Yarim-Agaev and Andrei Piontkovsky, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Before we begin, I would like to dedicate this symposium to Alexander Litvinenko and to his family.

Let’s have a moment of silence for Alexander Litvinenko and his loved ones.

(moment of silence)

20 Comments

Easter With William F. Buckley Jr.	Mar 27, 2008 6:01 am 131 Views
By Dr. Paul Kengor Thursday, March 27, 2008 Like many people, I suppose, my bookshelves are filled with books I’ve purchased with plans to read someday, sometime … but not right now. A couple of weeks ago, I grabbed one of those books, bought almost 10 years ago, and finally dug in—a good choice given the Easter season. The book is Nearer, My God: An Autobiography of Faith, by the recently departed William F. Buckley, Jr., published in 1997. The occasion for the trip to my bookshelf was Buckley’s death a few weeks ago and a subsequent conversation with one of my students concerning Buckley’s work. It occurred to me during that conversation that Buckley had written a spiritual autobiography, and that I had squirreled it away for too long. I grabbed it, and haven’t been able to put it down. As is the case with anything Buckley wrote, it is difficult to briefly summarize the richness of the thoughts in this book—the only full account of the man’s life as told through the prism of his faith. One senses the great conservative’s sadness in realizing, as time moved on, that Christendom—though not Christianity—had gradually withered on the vine in America. In considering the question, “Where does one learn about God?” Buckley made clear that the answer in his youth was—anywhere. The pervasiveness of the faith of Buckley’s youth—its omnipresence—is gone, even though the gates of Hell will not ultimately prevail against it. On that latter point, it must be understood by Protestants that this autobiography is distinctly Catholic, given that Buckley was a lifelong devout Catholic. Since this book was an exploration of his spiritual journey, it is also at times a defense and even an apologetic of his orthodox Roman Catholicism. That said, there is much here for the non-Catholic. I will highlight one item of supreme relevance to Buckley’s life and the life of modern America: the de-Christianization of American education, especially higher education. This was a theme that defined the early Buckley, who was launched onto the national stage by his 1951 classic, God and Man at Yale. In that first work, Buckley argued that American higher education had drifted from its Christian moorings, rapidly separating itself from initial intentions, readily violating mission statements everywhere. It was doing so under the guise of “academic freedom,” and under the leadership of faculties who had wrested away hiring decisions from college presidents and administrators. Today, such an assessment would be a statement of the obvious. Yet, what is now passé was, at Buckley’s writing, a cruise missile at the ivory tower. The conservative standard-bearer was, as usual, ahead of his time—and was also, as usual, attacked for his opinion. Alas, it was only in Nearer, My God that Buckley was able to do what he could never do in God and Man at Yale: respond to the 1950s critics of his book. In this fuller accounting of his faith experience, Buckley relates how he was excoriated by religious left intellectuals who thought the young man had lost his mind: Ivy League colleges losing their Christian compass? Nonsense! What claptrap! Buckley’s voice from the wilderness was deemed another example of right-wing paranoia, as if Joe McCarthy was sizing up new targets. Now, it is illuminating to read Buckley’s response to those critics of a half century ago, not to mention how he incorporates observations from contemporary Christian scholars like George Marsden. What’s also revealing is Buckley’s treatment of the religion question in America’s influential elite prep schools in the Northeast. This was something he had no reason to doubt as a young man at Millbrook School in Connecticut in the 1940s, when Christendom was the norm. Today is quite another story. Buckley was so exercised by this issue in Nearer, My God that it looks as if his editors requested he transfer his complaints into appendices, which he did in Appendix A, “Further Commentary on the Millbrook Christmas Celebration,” and Appendix B, “A Listing of Religious Activities at Various Schools.” These sections are both riveting and revolting—signs of the times and of the disastrous drift of elite education. Buckley makes clear that there is a new god at many of these institutions: multiculturalism. The Judeo-Christian God has been replaced by the golden, molten calf of multiculturalism. Aside from the painful material on education, Nearer, My God is (overall) more inspiring than disturbing, more hopeful than pessimistic. Only William F. Buckley, Jr. could take us on a journey through additional spiritual odysseys—the likes of Arnold Lunn and Whittaker Chambers and Malcolm Muggeridge, all of whom he knew uniquely—while also engaging us from the glory of the resurrection to the mundane but crucial matter of the development of Christian doctrine. Nearer, My God was a fruitful addition to my Easter readings. I heartily recommend it to all fans of Mr. Buckley—and his God—as perhaps his most timeless of works. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Kengor, Ph.D. is author of God and George W. Bush. He is also a professor of political science at Grove City College and a visiting fellow with the Hoover Institution.
	0 Comments

1 2 3 4 5 ... 100 ... 135 136 137 138 139 ... 150 ... 160 ... 177 178 179

To link to this blog (Tropical_Man) use [blog Tropical_Man] in your messages.

Tropical_Man

52 M

Guidelines

January 2009

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Recent Visitors

Visitor	Age	Sex	Date
GodsKyWoman	45	F	1/8
teddy672	31	M	1/8
momto3beagles	40	F	1/7
luvslighhouses22	50	F	1/7
Claudia_T	51	F	1/7
longing4more	49	F	1/6
reallysaved2	50	F	1/6
whisper85	34	F	1/6
knowTheTruth	36	M	1/6
orchid1002	43	F	1/5

Most Recent Comments by Others

Post	Poster	Post Date
to them of whoom we do not speak	Tropical_Man	Jan 7 9:07 pm
Seventh Day Adventist Experience	longing4more	Jan 7 11:44 am
Capitalism and the Financial Crisis	Skariff2	Jan 7 11:13 am
the worst lie	chocnroses	Jan 4 9:32 pm
Letters of Truth	Tropical_Man	Dec 29 1:19 am
who came up with this "Soul Sleep nonsense?	momto3beagles	Dec 28 8:53 am
Paul and the Law	Claudia_T	Dec 28 7:01 am
Men abuse	Tropical_Man	Dec 28 6:38 am
12 Myths and Insightful Special Reports on the Facts about Domestic Abuse	Tropical_Man	Dec 28 6:35 am
Jesus plus anything equals a lie	Claudia_T	Dec 27 4:49 am
Is the Seventh-day Adventist Church a Cult?	Claudia_T	Dec 25 11:55 pm