Wednesday, September 20, 2006

With Liberals, You Can't Just Disagree On Methods

With liberals, you can't just disagree on methods. With them, if you don't agree with their huge government nanny-state solutions, then it MUST be because your intentions are bad. They are so self-absorbed that the idea that there can be honest differences of opinion on how to get to the same goal is unthinkable. If you disagree with their methods, it must be because you disagree with their good intentions. Conversely, their intentions should never be questioned, even though the things they advocate have consistently taken us further away from their avowed goals.

Education is the best example. Mike Beebe recently said,"The big difference between me and my opponent is the belief that students, wherever they are, should get a quality education."

Does anyone really believe that Hutchinson does not think that "students everywhere should get a quality education"? Could it be possible that there is simply a disagreement on how to get the GOAL of giving every child wherever they are a quality education? Not with a liberal. If you disagree with their methods, it has to be because your intentions are bad! Its total self-righteous baloney.

I don't cast dispersions on either of their motives. Both guys want every child to have a quality education where ever they are, Hutchinson thinks it is best done by helping rural schools adapt and Beebe thinks it is best done by centralizing the schools. One wants flexibility and the other wants bureaucratic compliance. Take your pick.

Now Bill Halter has done it in the Lt. Governor's race.

(continued- click WEDNESDAY below and scroll down for rest of article, or if sent straight here just scroll down.)

4 Comments:

Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Halter's attack-fax distortion machine was at it again. Pre-K was a major difference of opinion on education. Halter's team said, "During last night’s Lieutenant Governor debate, Jim Holt, after six years of failure in the Legislature, finally revealed his plan to improve public schools. Jim Holt’s plan: “a child has to have love.” Today the Halter for Lieutenant Governor campaign agreed that children need love, but they also need an excellent education system that prepares them for the future. The Halter campaign also noted that Holt’s legislative record on education doesn’t show much love for Arkansas’s children and he has no real plan to improve public schools."

Are they sneering at the idea that children need love? While they say they "agreed that children need love" what is their practical idea of where that love would come from? Answer: From a government institution. Halter wants universial pre-K for 3 and 4 year old children. Holt thinks children that age should be with their families, not a government institution. Holt thinks three and four year old children are more likely to get that love from being with their families rather than committed to a government institution. And most of all Holt believes that families who want to keep their three and four year old children at home to love and nurture them there should not be taxed to pay for government institutions to warehouse those children.

They have a disagreement on what it is to love children. Halter thinks you show love by providing them with government programs. Holt thinks the key is to model and support better families. But to Halter, Holt "doesn't show much love for Arkansas' children" because he won't vote for more government programs to take care of them. In Halter's view of the world, love is dispensed from the government machine. Parents are off at work, busy earning income to pay in taxes so that machine can be well-oiled. To me it is a hellish distortion of what it is to love children, but the point is that I can see that Halter thinks he is loving children by supporting these programs. I don't accuse Halter of not loving children, I accuse him of having an ignorant and confused idea of what that is. Halter on the other hand, cannot comprehend that Holt is also loving children in the way he thinks best. To Halter, a failure to grow government is a failure to love.

Bill Halter is ignorant of the subject on which he presumes to lecture Holt. Holt is a father of nine. Halter did not even get married to his "partner" until he decided to come back to Arkansas and run for Governor (then Lt. Governor). It is incrediably brazen, delusional even, for a man in Halter's position to sneer at Holt's insitence that children need love as part of the reason he does not want universal Pre-K. Holt knows how to raise good kids. He has done it.

Halter moved to this state after a 27 year absense to run for office. Should he lose the election, my prediction is that within 6 months he will leave again and rarely if ever come back. Shold he win the election, he will run for Senate against Mark Pryor. Should he win, he will go to Washington and rarely or never come back. Should he lose, he will leave again and rarely if ever come back. His life choices reflect a contempt for the values of the people he wants to lead.

And here is another example of what I am talking about, the FAX said, “Last night’s debate showed Arkansans that Jim Holt continues to put personal ideology above progress."

That is the liberal mindset. If you are against the growth of the nanny state you are against "progress". And apparently they are so immersed in their liberal idealogy that they don't even realize that they have one. Only Holt has a "personal idealogy" in their eyes. To Holt, families keeping more of their earnings and more control over their own lives is progress, to Halter the government getting more of those earnings to devote to "programs" run by little tin gods like him to tell the family what they ought to do is "progress".

Liberals like Halter and Beebe appear to be incapable of realizing that other people can have different ideas of what "progress" is. To them "progress" can only be defined in terms of growing government. Movement in any other direction, like increased personal freedom and control of your own property and earnings, cannot (in their twisted view of the world) be defined as "progress".

They are so self-absorbed and self-righteous that any dissenting view from theirs cannot be another person's definition of "progress". Instead it must be a "personal idealogy" which selfish people put above the only valid version of "progress"; a version which puts people like them in greater and greater control of their fellow citizen's lives and property.

Say NO to liberal self-righteous nanny-state facism. Say YES to freedom.

8:23 AM, September 20, 2006  
Anonymous st.lucia said...

YES to freedom! NO to the liberals!

11:59 AM, September 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What, exactly, is a dispersion, and how would you cast one if so inclined?

8:39 PM, September 20, 2006  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

Its all in the wrist.

5:31 AM, September 21, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home