Conservatives think and liberals "feel"

I recently read Carole King's autobiography. Since King (who admits to changing her name from "Klein" to hide the fact that she is Jewish) has performed at many fund-raising events for liberal politicians, I knew in advance of reading the book that I didn't share her political beliefs. In the book, she is careful not to offend those of us who wouldn't agree with her statement that Gary Hart would have made a great president!

Apparently without realizing it, King's recollections in the book personify the conflicting beliefs of liberals. For example, although she expresses lots of feminist beliefs about things like "glass ceilings," upon his death, she uses glowing terms to describe her husband who had physically abused her for years. What?!

One of my favorite "liberals are clueless" parts of the book is King's description of moving to Idaho to get away from L.A. She talks about how it was a wonderful communal experience (more hippie/liberal code words) that gave her the opportunity to become "one" with nature and the lovable Idahoans. Well, it was great until...."

It seems that King didn't want those wonderful neighbors to use a road that ran through her property--even though previous owners of the property had allowed the neighbors to do so. King kept a padlock on the gate to the road. So the neighbors went to the local government officials who ruled that based on established practice, the road should be open to the neighbors.

So King used her wealth to hire (and fire) several lawyers and took her desire to keep her neighbors off this road to local, state, and federal courts! This is so typical of liberal hypocrisy. All land should be communal--unless it's my land! The government (the "man") is bad unless I need the legal system to protect me.

Here are other liberal hypocrisies:

* Killing helpless babies is fine--killing armies of genocidal maniacs not good
* Women should have control of decisions made about their bodies except: (1) if they are females in the womb, (2) if the decision is made after a certain point in the pregnancy, and (3) it is a decision made by government-run health care
* Government spying on its citizens is bad when Bush is president--good when Obama is president
* Making "racist" comments is good when Joe Biden does it--bad when Rush Limbaugh does it
* It's okay when liberals like Carole King change their names to mask their heritage, but the rest of us must embrace "diversity"
* Rich liberals are good--rich conservatives are bad

We have now clearly seen what's behind the liberal curtain.

Related books or media from post: 
No votes yet

What kind of a name is Galt?
And "think not feel?"...when do you ever let facts get in the way of your opinions?
Hypocrisy, thy name is Galt!

Conservatives think, alright. They think they should rule all of us even though they have pea brains. That's the only thought they are capable of.


In the book, did King actually come out and say she changed her name to hide her religion? Or, is that just the reason you “feel” she was doing it for?

The quote from the book referencing her name change from "Carol Klein":

"First I added the 'e' to Carol to distinguish myself from the two other Carol Kleins in my school. Then, following a precedent established by Jewish entertainers before me who believed a non-ethnic name would improve their chances for success, I decided on King."

Also, please note you used the word "religion"--I didn't.

criticize anyone else for changing her name? Keep it up, hypocrite!!

As two local examples, Danny Thomas was named Amos Muzyad Yakhoob Kairouz at birth, which the family shortened to Amos Jacobs, long before Mr. Thomas went into show biz. Jamie Farr had the birth name Jameel Joseph Farah. I have many Greek friends, (including at least two who were born and raised in Greece). Many Greeks were born with very long names. The use of Pappas is common for many Greeks, as a shortened version of the much longer name with which they were born.
Changing one's name is something done by people in many fields of economic activity other than entertainment. If you've never faced discrimination because of your ethnic, racial, or religious background, it's easy to criticize others for actions they take to try to get ahead in their chosen field, by limiting something in their background which could hurt their career, GALT! Changing ones name, GALT, is part of reaching the American dream of success in one's chosen field. Once again, I am defending the free market system I cherish, and you claim to cherish, against you, Mr. Hypocrite, aka GALT.

He was born with the name Marion Robert Morrison. Guess you don't have to be a minority in order to change your name for career reasons, huh.

Hey Mr. Hypocrite, Galt, what do you think of that? You're not the only conservative hiding behind a pseudonym. One BIG difference...I don't recall John Wayne ever criticizing others for changing their names, unlike some hypocrite I know who posts here.

Dale, you DO realize that the Screen Actor's Guild requires most people to change their names don't you?


SAG does NOT require "most people" to change their names. SAG only requires people to change their names, if they are using a name, even one with which they were born, which is already being used by a current actor. As long as the actor doesn't change their name to another name already being used, they are free to use any name they wish. For instance, Michael J. Fox has stated in interviews that, when he entered show business and wanted to use the name Michael Fox, there was already another actor using that name. All he had to do was add the middle letter "J," and he was in the clear.
Why is this important? How confusing would it be, if one could choose to act under any name? Obviously, choosing the same name as a famous person would get a lot of new actors the proverbial "foot-in-the-door," and lead a LOT of movie makers to give jobs to young actors who were using the same name as an established star, so they could use that name in their billing. As it is, many actors choose names that are as close as possible to the names of famous actors to further their careers. Actors do a lot of things to get roles!
BTW -- The usual way someone has her/his name changed is by some movie exec or some agent, not because the name conflicts with that of an established star. For example, Marion Morrison, nickname "Duke," had his name changed by a movie exec. In his first film, around 1929, he was billed under "Duke Morrison." The exec wanted Marion to change his name to Anthony Wayne, after the famous general, who was NOT a well known actor; but Marion thought that name sounded "too Italian," so he used John Wayne instead. This was in 1930 or 1931. The Screen Actors Guild had not even been formed yet!
I do have family members in show business. One of my first cousin's sons is Corey Feldman. His name at birth was Corey Feldman. Fewer modern actors are changing their names, although it still seems quite prevalent among recording artists. BTW -- the deceased British comedian and actor, Marty Feldman, (no relation to me), was born Martin Alan Feldman. It's hard to sound much more Jewish than the last name Feldman. For most performers, changing one's name is a FREE WILL CHOICE. I thought that most conservatives were all about free will choice. After all, Galt is using a pseudonym as a free will choice, isn't he? Is he in show biz?

It's okay when liberals like Carole King change their names to mask their heritage, but the rest of us must embrace "diversity"

Did it ever occur to you that if more people had been embracing diversity, name changing may not have seemed necessary for the performers King refers to?

Did it ever occur to you that if you truly embrace diversity--you shouldn't hide your heritage? (Although your post does reinforce the fact that liberals have a different set of rules for themselves.)

Exactly what in your background embarrasses you, Mr. Hypocrite, aka GALT?

You reduced her motive down to what you feel it is: in your words " hide the fact that she is Jewish", when there is much more to it than just that. Thanks for the actual quote. I know including it hurts your agenda.

Geez--what "more to it" is there? Did you read the quote?

Did you forget I was the one that got you to post what she actually said? I knew you had to be leaving something out. If you need it explained I’ll help you understand what you missed.

Look at the part of the quote where she says “ Following a precedent established by Jewish entertainers before me who believed a non-ethnic name would improve their chances for success, I decided on King."
In this sentence she clearly tells us "more" of why she changed her name. And, here’s a clue for you: her main point isn't that she simply “admits to changing her name from Klein to hide the fact that she is Jewish” as you wrote. She wrote it to tell us her main reason was to avoid anti-Semitism as others had done before her. That’s the “more” you missed.

By the way, she doesn’t have to “admit” anything, having done nothing wrong.

Most liberals I know will weep over an injured or abandoned kitty cat... seriously, I have seen them cry... but then show a hard, soulless facial expression when challenged to care about babies murdered in abortion mills. I have known one or maybe two liberals who know and admit that abortion is wrong and is murder. But most won't, even when they KNOW better. And the sad truth is -- almost all of them KNOW BETTER.

Rush Limbaugh is exactly right on this topic (baby murders) - He says something to the effect that this is the main SACRAMENT of Feminazi-ism [killing babies in the womb]. I would put it a little differently, to include ALL committed liberals... It's the primary SACRAMENT of the religion of LIBERALISM.

to "save" the unborn, but once those children are born, turn a blind eye and close their pocketbooks to those unwanted children who are born into squalor, and live in squalor. For example, how many conservative governors and legislators refused to accept federal funds to expand Medicaid for the working poor? How many LIVING CHILDREN in those families will suffer, and/or even die, from ill health because of these callous, ideological, political decisions.

More of these conservative hypocrites should look at the real world of unwanted babies who are born and are living, and ask themselves, "WWJD?"

Wait--I thought Obamacare provided health care for EVERYONE?!

You just don't want to accept the explanation. Obamacare is a compromise with the giant corporate insurance conglomerates!

Giant corporate insurance conglomerates killed true, comprehensive national health care in the 1990s. Obamacare is a compromise fashioned primarily from the program instituted under Willard (Mitt) Romney when he was Governor of Massachusetts. BTW -- the Massachusetts plan, often called Romneycare, includes forcing citizens to either get insurance or pay a fee. Obamacare was designed to get the support of the giant corporate insurance conglomerates, and, for the most part, it has!

And, GALT, you're still a hypocrite who started this very thread with a condemnation of an actor for changing her name, while you post here while hiding behind a pseudonym of your own.

No--I can't believe what you're saying! Obama promised that this was the answer to the health care woes, Biden said this was a "big f&@#ing deal, and Nancy Pelosi said it represented a historic day in America--they never said this was a "compromise"! (Heck, how could it be a "compromise" when only Democrats voted for it?!)

(As an aside: Carole King isn't an "actor" and "Galt" isn't a pseudonym.)

I know who Carole King is!

So Galt is not a pseudonym? Really?
I did work with Jim Gault, (obviously spelled differently).

You obviously don't read my posts thoroughly, or you refuse to accept facts. I'll try one last time:

IMHO -- What most concerns you, other right-wing ideologues, and most Republican politicians, is that Obamacare may actually work well. Heaven forbid! I am not a big fan of Obamacare, but it's better than not having any national health care program at all.

America does NOT have the "best health care in the world!" America DOES HAVE the MOST EXPENSIVE health care in the world! And a lot of those costs have nothing to do with delivering health care services. Too much of the money that goes into health care is spent to hire non-health care employees to administer the over 100 different health insurance plans, and run down payments from both the insurance companies, and those insured. Corporate bureaucracy is every bit as bad as government bureaucracy, and we all pay for it in the form of higher costs for health care than in any other industrialized nation in the world!!

I believe your comment about people "turning blind eyes" and "children born in squalor" exemplifies the statement that liberals feel and conservatives think.

When one thinks--he/she realizes:

1. There are many ways to prevent pregnancy. Thus, pregnancy is a choice that a man and a woman make.

2. When a child is born as a result of the decision made in Step 1, it is the responsibility of the mother and father of that child to house, feed, educate, and cloth that child. If a child lives in squalor, it is up to the parents to rectify that situation--not the government. Churches, individuals, charitable organizations may CHOOSE to assist, but taxpayers shouldn't be FORCED to assist.

The belief that certain groups of people can't be expected to be responsible for their children because they are too ignorant, unmotivated, irresponsible, etc., perpetuates that behavior.

is born, most ideological conservatives want nothing to do with that child. The fact that the child is the product of an unwanted pregnancy, that the pregnancy is often NOT the choice of the female, means nothing to most conservatives. Your fetus, my concern. Your child, NOT my concern. Most ideological conservatives feel, all right, for the unborn, but NOT for the born.

It still comes back to WWJD.

How is getting pregnant "not the choice" of the male or female who conceive it? Seriously?

This whole “conservatives think, liberals feel” meme is nothing more than a way to get people to stop thinking and believe a pile of crap. Right- wing pundits came up with it long ago and morons have been repeating it in various forms ever since. The idea is to label liberal programs that form our social safety net as “feel good” programs that are unnecessary, as if they are only in place to make liberals feel good about themselves. The exact opposite is true. A great deal of thought has gone into programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, etc. They are not perfect, but these programs have proven their value time and again. The social safety net is not designed to make liberals “feel good”. Liberal programs are in place to solve real problems.

In fact, liberal programs don't "solve" problems-- they exacerbate them.

Government programs don’t solve everyone’s problems, but neither does the absence of such programs. Sometimes help from a government program can keep a person going long enough to get back on their feet and make it on their own.

The reality is societies need to address problems and not just ignore them. It would be great if we could just depend on job creators and the market to solve every problem, but they have their own way of exacerbating things with financial bubbles, market crashes, outsourcing etc.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.