Persuade me to be Liberal

we don't need u on our side..there needs to be a conservatives block so that people can understand how good the liberals are!! stay where u are..thanks

typical liberal. runs from the issues.

Jesse,
I don't think you are sincere. You do not wish to be persuaded to become a liberal. It takes more introspection to understand liberalism. Conservatism is for you, my friend.

I would be happy and think the article a success of someone who is of the liberal persuasion to take the challenge seriously and stand up for their beliefs. Running and dodging is the typical response, liberals, for once, think outside the box and actually stand up for your beliefs. Debate and discussion are paramount to the process of this great republic.

Did you notice, Jesse, that neither person (though very polite) chose to defend their viewpoints specifically, nor refute any of yours?

I did Greg, and sadly though, you gave both credit for being polite. Joe T is polite as he always has been. But your right, Neither of them will step up and defend their positions. Failure to defend equals blind in your beliefs.

I understand that this article is playing devils advocate in order to highlight the hypocrisies on the left. But for a more productive venture it should be the other way around. Meaning it would be more beneficial for the country to have more conservatives. After all anyone who once was liberal and is now conservative will never go back. When one realizes one is a conservative, he or she is realizing they are tired of living under the pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. There is this saying that has been floating around the Internet for years, and no one can say for sure who first said it. But it doesn't matter who as much as what it has to say. It goes something like this;

"If you were not a liberal when you were younger then you have no heart, but if you are not conservative as you mature then you have no brains."

I don't have to defend my viewpoints. They are just that - viewpoints. I happen to believe I am right for many reasons but I certainly won't defend my position any more than you will yours.

Which is it really? "Don't have to defend?" or "Don't want to?" or "Can't defend?"
Typical liberal positioning, or is cut cutting and running?
As far as me defending my views;
I know I "Don't have to defend "but "I am willing to" and "I can!"

If your ICON is really you then I see we are about the same age. I really don't understand
why someone our age as not seen the light yet. Learned that there is NO Utopia, and that it's time to work for the things that are important. The days of holding hands and sing "Cumbyah" are over.

Actually, if us baby-boomers really cared about our country (and not cared about some brain washed ideal we had pumped into over there 30 years ago) we would stand up and say, "What the Hell did we start way back then?" We meant well, but it didn't work! And more important today is to realize that not everyone in this world wants to hold hands and sing "Cumbyah", some want to behead you.

So tell me after all these years – "Who really is guilty of "Staying the Course"?

I am conservative and proud of it, I think conservatives have compassion, morals and values, I cannot convice you to be liberal. To me being liberal is a bad word. You are wise to be a conservative. Conservatives also, stand for a free America.

Based on the comments, sounds like liberals are the exclusionists they accuse conservatives of.

I always perceived liberals as people who really think they're better, more intelligent and morally superior ... this just supports that notion.

There is no way a liberal will come in here and try and defend their views on said subjects. I have been trying to figure out the same questions and have never been able to get a straight answer. So far all I see is groupthink and a "we dont want you anyways" attitude. I just dont get it.

No not really, Conservatives DO NOT consider themselves as having a monopoly on morals, values and patriotism. Conservatives are just able to identify reality and know the true meaning for morals, values and patriotism. And have a deeper understand as to the importance of protecting those morals, values and patriotism.

After all, Conservatives do not politely correct them away as liberals do.

I was struck by the fact that so many liberals were excluding me and inviting me to stay way. Conservatives typically are inclusive. We are generally happy to explain our points and views and defend them and defend the liberals rights to do the same, yet the liberals will not defend the right of the conservative and actually see nothing wrong with denying the rights of conservatives. Maybe not all liberals, Joe T, though didn't arise to the challenge comes across as one that will not suppress anyone. This is also an observation made from previous contacts with him. The others are obviously typical liberals that suppress all opposing views. This article and subsequent comments are just more proof to this theory. I am a minority, you would think they would be reaching out to me but, as you see, they aren't.

I couldn't have said it better myself,Vickey. I don't have to convince anyone to be a liberal;sadly,for a lot of people it just comes naturally. All you have to do is give in to your baser instincts(laziness,bigotry,selfishness),and you'll be on the right track.

Man what a bunch of chickens. Not even one tried it. Well, I think your point is proven. They dont even believe the crap they say.

Maybe the reason no one is "stepping up" to defend the crap you listed in your article is because they aren't views that are held by the vast majority of people who you would label as "liberal."

It seems to me that you have bought into the right-wing O'reilly-esque tactic of creating absolutes and then lumping anyone who disagrees with you in with that group. It's alot easier to think in terms of stereotypes and absurd generalizations (in terms of 'black and white' -- when reality is much more grey). It makes the naturally messy and chaotic business of dealing with human beings in a complex world seem much less stressful; it diminishes anxiety.
Incidentally, it's also identical to the popular social trends and worldviews that led to the uprise of fascism and naziism in 1930's Germany and Italy. Beligerent anti-liberalism was very prevalant then, too.

But I will humor you since no one has yet. I'm quite certain that I'm someone who you would easily slap the "liberal" label on.

"Make me believe our soldiers deserve being spat upon and protested and burned in effigy."

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Are you really that stupid and gullible to actually believe that this is a typical "liberal" viewpoint?
I haven't seen one credible report about a soldier getting spit on, so I'll leave that one alone. As for the misguided young punks who burned the effigy of a soldier, they are just that; misguided young punks. Their views aren't embraced by any significant segment of the population, let alone "liberals." I wrote an article about that incident; and about how I knew as soon as I saw the video of it that the right-wing echo chamber would try to use it as a club with which to beat the entire anti-war movement. It certainly didn't take long for Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly to spin the incident as representative of the views of all "liberals" -- and apparently you bought it just as fast.
There's a word for that kind of spinning of facts into popular mythology -- it's called "propaganda."

"Make me believe 9/11 was an inside conspiracy and only Jews were warned to stay home that day."

Why did you pick the "Jews told to stay home that day" as the one point of contention here?

Perhaps the reason there are so many "conspiracy theories" floating around out there is because of all of the glaringly obvious holes in the "official" version of the events of 9/11, along with all of the other circumstantial occurences that don't quite make sense.

I ask you, how do you explain away i) the fact that despite at least three years of relatively specific, urgent, and accurate foreign intelligence warnings and dozens of warning signs, the Federal Government made no effort to prepare or protect our country against the attacks. It was enough to make Former AG John Ashcroft decide to refrain from flying commercial starting in June of 2001 (on account of "intelligence warnings" that he would neither cite the source of nor the nature of), but not enough for anyone to issue a warning to the FAA to tell their pilots to take extra precautions, or for the Executive branch to set up a line of communications should "rules of engagement" need to be extended down the chain of command in the case of an emergency?
ii) Why, after the known al Qaeda attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998, the known al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and the known fact that al Qaeda was being harbored and supported by the Taliban in Afghanistan, would GW Bush shower a gift of $43 million upon the Taliban government in March of 2001? ("Bush's Faustian Deal w/ the Taliban")
iii) How come the Bush administration fought tooth and nail against the formation of the 9/11 Commission, preferring instead a secret internal investigation? Why did he stonewall the investigation at every turn? Why did he and Cheney refuse to testify separately, in public and under oath? (Sounds more like the behavior of two criminals who want to keep their stories straight, than the actions of men with "nothing to hide").
iv) Why was Osama bin Laden not arrested when he checked into a hospital in Dubai for dialysis treatment on 9/10/2001?
v) Why did the Fedearl government threaten to arrest FBI agents if they "harrased" suspected Saudi terrorist operatives before 9/11? (Google "document 199i")
vi) Why did the Bush administration actively facilitate the transporting of dozens of Saudi's (including members of the bin Laden family) back to Saudi Arabia (where they knew the saudi government wouldn't allow them to be questioned) -- instead of allowing them to be interrogated here first?

"Make me believe that welfare is good for the country, that the top 1% of earners are responsible for paying 35% of taxes. Justify this as well."

I, for one, would be all for eliminating welfare programs -- as soon as the government actually does something to stop the rapid trend of socio-economic injustice in this country (and agrees to eliminate corporate welfare, as well).
I have some simple solutions: 1) Actually start enforcing the immigration laws -- FOR REAL. That means serious penalties for businesses, large or small, that employ illegal aliens. if no one is hiring them, then they won't come here. If they don't come here, they won't be taking jobs that Americans could have, and they won't be driving down legitimate wages. 2) Stop the practice of unfair trade policies. Millions of hard-working Americans are losing their livelihoods because of the exodus of high-paying manufacturing/production jobs overseas. It's inherently unfair that Americans (in a first-world nation with high labor standards and human rights laws) should have to compete for their jobs with people in third-world (or "developing") nations, with little or no labor standards or human rights laws.

"Free-market capitalism" only works for those of us in the middle or bottom of the social/economic pyramid, when outside influences like cheap immigrant labor, or rampant unregulated "outsourcing" aren't present to diminish the supposed "benefits" for the middle- and lower-middle class.

As long as the economic system is set up to benefit primarily those at the top of the pyramid, it's only fair to have the "safety net" provided by social programs.

And the top 1% pay 35% of the taxes because they make about 35% of the income. Would you rather the poorest of us be made to shoulder the bulk of the tax burden?

"Make me believe that more government programs and funding will fix Social Security even though it is in itself a government program with federal funding and it is broke."

Social Security is actually a taxpayer funded program, managed by the federal government. The main reason it is "broke" is because the federal government has been raiding the Social Security piggy-bank.
I have no good answers for you here, pal. Only that it's a bit absurd to assume that "liberals" are somehow responsible for the problems with S.S., or that they are the only ones who are required to come up with solutions.

"Make me think global warming is real regardless of the fact that just a few years ago global cooling was the liberal environmental mantra."

Another disingenuous assertion. "Global warming" is an environmentalist mantra. Not all people with "liberal" views are environmentalists, and not all environmentalists are "liberals." I personally don't have a dog in the fight either way. I do know that there is a global scientific consensus that the planet is warming -- the point of contention is whether or not the trend is due to human activities or not. I would also say this -- I doubt the thousands of tons of gunk and smog we humans pump into the atmosphere every day can't possibly be good for the environment.
How about this: YOU convince ME that the so-called "scientific data", that allegedly exonerates humans from the issue, isn't junk science; promulgated by the energy industry (akin to the "science" -- bought and paid for by the tobacco industry -- that once tried to convince evryone that nicotine was not addictive, and that cigarettes did not cause cancer).

"Make me believe paying people to stay home and not get a job is the right thing to do. Make me understand how govt handouts are good. Why do you think we should pay people to be unemployed?"

Again -- absurd generalizations; this time compounded by misrepresentations of the truth.

For one; welfare does not "pay people to stay home and not get a job." People can only collect welfare for a short period of time (I believe it's six months) before they are required to either find a job or attend a job training course, or else they are cut off. It's not an unlimited, indefinite source of income for anyone who doesn't feel like working. That's a common misrepresntation. I've already stated why I don't think we should eliminate social welfare programs just yet.
If your question "why do you think we should pay people to be unemployed" was intended to address Unemployment Benefits, then maybe you should learn something about that as well, before you comment on it. Unemployment benefits from the Dept of Labor, are not "hand-outs." Everyone who works over-the-table actually pays into their own unemployment insurance. The money you collect from the Dept. of Labor is money you payed into it yourself. Unemployment benefits run out after 26 weeks now, and you have to pay into it for another year before you can collect again if you exhaust your benefits. (You used to be able to apply for benefit extensions -- which were good for an additional 26 weeks -- until Bush put an end to that in 2002. Might have had something to do with the fact that they determine unemployment statistics by counting the number of people collecting unemployment benefits. Once your benefits run out; you no longer count towards the statistics. So of course, Bush can now tout "lower unemployment statistics" faster -- as the amount of time people are actually counted towards the numbers has been cut in half).

The " fart credit scheme" is beyond me. Again -- it seems you are cutting up on "environmentalists," and lumping them in with the group you call "liberals" -- thus you can ascribe any inconsistencies or "hypocrisy" of the "environmentalist" groups to all "liberals."

That's basically the same as me condemning all "conservatives" because of the actions of the KKK, or some racist remarks made by Trent Lott.

Hillary says so.

Make me believe our soldiers deserve being spat upon and protested and burned in effigy.

• make me believe we have put our soldiers in a place that:
  they have the best equipment
  
• training
  
• are wanted
  
• providing a service that is needed
  
  we are in a war to oust Bin Laden, in a country he was not welcome before the war started.
  
  Make me believe that 9-11 was an inside conspiracy and only Jews were warned to stay home that day.
  
  Do you really want someone to convince you of that? Bin Laden probably doesn't like Jews and I doubt if he had some phone tree to call them
  
  Make me believe that welfare is good for the country, that the top 1% of earners are responsible for paying 35% of taxes. Justify this as well.
  
  The top 400 incomes in the US average $221 MILLION a year, they pay 18 percent of their income. If that is a burden on them... give me that income, that interest of obligation, give me that burden. Look up the statistics of what percentage that one percent earns and you would be asking why do they only pay 35 percent
  
  Make me believe that more government programs and funding will fix Social Security even though it is in itself a government program with federal funding and it is broke.
  
  could you explain what this means
  
  Make me think global warming is real regardless of the fact that just a few years ago global cooling was the liberal environmental mantra.
  
  I am sorry if all the scientific data means nothing to you.
  
  Make me believe paying people to stay home and not get a job is the right thing to do. Make me understand how govt handouts are good. Why do you think we should pay people to be unemployed?
  
  The cost of welfare is not in the people staying at home making $8k a year, it is the administration where the welfare 'workers' make 80 percent of what our welfare program costs. As with all government, those (higher end) jobs usually go to the friends of republicans.
  
  Explain this "fart credit" scheme to me. What give Algore the right to sell them and where did he buy them from in the first place to sell them to us. By the way, my wife farts VERY LITTLE and I fart a lot, so she will transfer her fart credits to me at no cost.
  
  umm, don't know what this means, but then if I listened to Rush more I might.