Are you a liberal?

Are you a liberal according to the definition given?

  • Yes, I'm a liberal, by that definition.

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • No, I may be a liberal, but not according to the definition given.

    Votes: 7 77.8%
  • I'm not sure.

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • Total voters
    9

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
We do not "destroy everything in it." That's a highly sensational fallacy.

Yes you do. You destroy people's right to free religious expression. You destroy the right to free speech. You've destroyed 40 million fetuses. You periodically destroy the military by gutting it out. You've destroyed the schools. You've destroyed the nuclear family. You've destroyed the proper role of the judicial system, and the rule of law. You've destroyed american competitiveness in the world. You've destroyed the right of free expression and inquiry of all points of view in the universities, a freedom even medieval universities had. You are about to destroy the american medical system. You destroy the constitutional right to keep arms. You've destroyed the right to equal protection of the law in a thousand different ways. You destroy the cohesion of the country with the balkanization consequent to your illegal alien tsunami. You destroy property rights and a degree of american energy independence with all your ecofascist fads and prohibitions. You destroy everything you get your hands on, and you want to get your filthy hands on everything.

Oh, please. If the gay marriage debate was really about what the few intellectuals on the right say it's about then the whole thing would have been over years ago. The reason it stays in the spotlight is simple - prejudice.

The reason it stays in the spolight is the PR efforts for it by the lib media. Homosexuals want it because they want to co-opt what has been for thousands of years a heterosexual institution, even in societies like ancient Rome which had no moral problem with homosexuality. The reason they want it is because they want to force people to accept them as normal. This is part of their "in your face" attitude that inspires so much hatred for them. The issue is more complicated in my personal attitude toward the issue, because I believe the state should not be involved in marriage - rather it should be a religious or cultural event as different individuals define it. But I still know what homosexuals' reason for "gay marriage" is.

And if being a "super-citizen" means being part of a demographic with a 24.7% poverty rate (as opposed to the 8.6% poverty rate amongst white people) then I just have to wonder - where does the "super" part start benefiting them?

Oh, gee, lemmee list a few highlights:

- pro black racial discrimination in university admissions
- pro black racial discrimination in professional schools
- pro black racial discrimination in scholarships, fellowships,and internships
- pro black racial discrimination in corporate hiring, promotion, pay, and layoff order
- pro black racial discrimination in government contract awards
- pro black racial discrimination in police and fire fighter employment
- pro black racial discrimination in the military
- pro black racial discrimination in corporate franchises
- gerrymandered congressional districts to assure black congressional members
- Pervasive PC pro black portrayals in movies, TV, print ads, and TV ads
- pro black racial discrimination in union apprenticeships
- Renewal of the voting rights act 41 years after it was passed, for 30 years, when all vestiges of systematic voting discrimination had disappeared, just for the continuing symbolic value, and the now-robotic reflex of approving anything "pro-black"

But would you, personally, allow abortions for rape victims?

That is an issue I haven't resolved, so don't argue with me about it - I don't have a position. One thing I read on this issue that is interesting is that of the thousands of kosovo women who were raped by the hated serbs and got pregnant, half chose to bring their pregnancies to term, even though abortion procedures are readily available. I forget the source, it wasn't a pro-life group, and if you don't believe it, I don't care.

You're right about this. Although our involvement in Vietnam began under Eisenhower, Kennedy was the first to send troops, and Johnson was the one who effectively took over the war from the French. Nixon was the one who ended it.

Actually, our involvement began with Truman who sent the Military Assistance Advisory Group - eisenhower continued this. Kennedy's over 16,000 "advisers" were the first to take part in actual combat operations.

How about World War II? Was that a "lib" war, given that FDR was probably the most big-government of all the Presidents of the US?

Did I say that? I don't remember saying that.

Anyway, when I (at least) discuss how we've contributed to how the world is today, I'm not looking to assign blame, I'm looking for ways to develop solutions. Angry finger-pointing rarely accomplishes anything good.

Talking about angry finger pointing is usually an attempt to escape blame, blur history, and set the groundwork for repeating the same mistakes.
 
Werbung:

vyo476

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,401
Location
Massachusetts
You destroy people's right to free religious expression.

Nonsense. I promote religious tolerance wherever possible. Refer to all the "Islam is Evil!" threads on this very website in order to see what I'm talking about.

You destroy the right to free speech.

Please tell me that this is another Don Imus thing. I wouldn't advocate using the force of government against people for their opinions - but I might encourage people not to listen. There's a big difference.

You've destroyed 40 million fetuses.

I've told you, I'm still undecided on abortion.

You periodically destroy the military by gutting it out.

Reducing or removing the scope of a standing army is something straight out of classical liberalism. The founding fathers probably wouldn't be too happy at the massive standing army our government maintains.

You've destroyed the schools.

On the contrary, it is conservatives who are constantly talking about cutting funding to schools. Education is a liberal priority, not a conservative one.

You've destroyed the nuclear family.

The nuclear family is destroying itself; we're just letting it die.

You've destroyed the proper role of the judicial system, and the rule of law.

The judicial system has always legislated from the bench. Marbury vs. Madison? Dred Scott?

What is the proper role of the judicial system? Making decisions you like?

You've destroyed american competitiveness in the world.

In what sense? We're still top dogs in terms of military and economics. If anything has destroyed our competitiveness, it is that the competitors can't compete. Except China.

You've destroyed the right of free expression and inquiry of all points of view in the universities, a freedom even medieval universities had.

I presently go to art school in southern New Hampshire, right near the border with Massachusetts. It's a pretty liberal area. One of my neighbors in the dorm uses Confederate flags for curtains. Nothing came of it.

And the idea of freedom of expression in the middle ages, when even talking about anything anti-Church could get you barbecued, is ridiculous. They may have had a cursory "freedom of expression," but only because it was well understood that no one there would express things far enough from the norm to bother the people in charge.

You are about to destroy the american medical system.

Once again, a matter of debate. I haven't made up my own mind on socialized medicine yet.

You destroy the constitutional right to keep arms.

Others who are liberals would. I would not.

You've destroyed the right to equal protection of the law in a thousand different ways.

Care to name a few that are important?

You destroy the cohesion of the country with the balkanization consequent to your illegal alien tsunami.

Our illegal alien tsunami? Excuse me, but who was in the Oval Office the last time amnesty was attempted?

You destroy property rights and a degree of american energy independence with all your ecofascist fads and prohibitions.

Environmentalists are trying to make sure there still is an America years down the road. Think long term.

You destroy everything you get your hands on, and you want to get your filthy hands on everything.

Calm down.

The reason it stays in the spolight is the PR efforts for it by the lib media. Homosexuals want it because they want to co-opt what has been for thousands of years a heterosexual institution, even in societies like ancient Rome which had no moral problem with homosexuality. The reason they want it is because they want to force people to accept them as normal. This is part of their "in your face" attitude that inspires so much hatred for them. The issue is more complicated in my personal attitude toward the issue, because I believe the state should not be involved in marriage - rather it should be a religious or cultural event as different individuals define it. But I still know what homosexuals' reason for "gay marriage" is.

I believe the bolded statement as well. Good luck convincing people of it though.

Oh, gee, lemmee list a few highlights:

- pro black racial discrimination in university admissions

Only as a response to the overwhelming difficulties faced by most African American students in attempting to get into universities today and the historical intolerance of institutions of higher learning towards African Americans. It balances out.

- pro black racial discrimination in professional schools

I don't know anything about this personally - care to elaborate? Perhaps with some evidence to back it up?

- pro black racial discrimination in scholarships, fellowships,and internships

Scholarships are handed out to specific groups of people all the time. There are even scholarships out there that are whites-only. Maybe there aren't as many as there are blacks-only scholarships. Deal with it.

- pro black racial discrimination in corporate hiring, promotion, pay, and layoff order

Let's see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege#Employment_and_economics

A quote:

What he found was that the white graduates were more often employed in skilled trades, earned more, held higher status positions, received more promotions and experienced shorter periods of unemployment. Since all factors of these graduates education and skills were strikingly similar, the differences in employment experiences could only be attributed to race. Royster concluded that the primary cause of these racial differences was due to social networking. The concept of “who you know” seemed just as important to these graduates as “what you know.”

Seems the discrimination isn't exactly going the way you thought.

- pro black racial discrimination in government contract awards

Once again, don't know anything about this personally, care to elaborate?

- pro black racial discrimination in police and fire fighter employment

I know of a few laws and decrees (the Castro-Beecher Consent Decree here in MA, for instance) which require municipalities to hire equal numbers of white and black police officers, is that what you're talking about? If not, post a link to what you are talking about.

- pro black racial discrimination in the military

Race and the military is a touchy subject. I have heard of some instances where affirmative action in the military got out of hand, but for the most part promoting racial equality throughout the military is still a sound idea.

- pro black racial discrimination in corporate franchises

In what way?

- gerrymandered congressional districts to assure black congressional members

Evidence?

- Pervasive PC pro black portrayals in movies, TV, print ads, and TV ads

Pervasive? Hardly. White people are still seen in a positive light in all of those things far more often than black people.

Anyway, even if it was pervasive, why would it bother you? Why would it matter to you at all?

- pro black racial discrimination in union apprenticeships

Another one I'm not familiar with.

- Renewal of the voting rights act 41 years after it was passed, for 30 years, when all vestiges of systematic voting discrimination had disappeared, just for the continuing symbolic value, and the now-robotic reflex of approving anything "pro-black"

Do you disapprove of what the Voting Rights Act symbolizes, or do you just find symbolism useless?

That is an issue I haven't resolved, so don't argue with me about it - I don't have a position. One thing I read on this issue that is interesting is that of the thousands of kosovo women who were raped by the hated serbs and got pregnant, half chose to bring their pregnancies to term, even though abortion procedures are readily available. I forget the source, it wasn't a pro-life group, and if you don't believe it, I don't care.

You really need to calm down. I don't intend to "argue" with you about abortion, I haven't exactly made up my mind on it either. Don't assume I'm always going to jump down your throat. I would like to reconcile our views as much as possible - that's one of the reasons I came here in the first place.

Actually, our involvement began with Truman who sent the Military Assistance Advisory Group - eisenhower continued this. Kennedy's over 16,000 "advisers" were the first to take part in actual combat operations.

One way or the other it wasn't until Kennedy that Americans started actually fighting.

Did I say that? I don't remember saying that.

I was asking you if you believed it.

Talking about angry finger pointing is usually an attempt to escape blame, blur history, and set the groundwork for repeating the same mistakes.

Or, it's simply an attempt to cool the discussion down a little so that we can converse in a civilized manner.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
The response to the above would be yet another tutoring session for someone who seems clueless about american history and contemporary policies - in this case a massive one - I'll get to it when I can, but I'll get to it. And boy, is it tiresome to have to explain EVERYTHING to the local libbies.
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
I so despise attempts at putting people and their opinions in neat little boxes labeled 'liberal' or 'conservative'.

The only requirement for a valid opinion is that it is based on FACTS AND LOGIC.

Neither of which, I have ever seen you demonstrate. Is the China boom due to Capitalism or Socialism? Which is why you are 'liberal' I wager. Facts and Logic indeed.
 
Werbung:

BigRob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
7,541
Location
USA
maybe I should point out that the oil companies have been expeiriencing mind blowing profits almost every year since the Republican president came into office, and that our president seems to be in denial about global climate change (the whole Kyoto treaty thing), which only benifits one group; the oil compaines.

It is all about supply and demand. It is not Bush's fault that China's demand for oil is increasing by huge amounts and that the supply (coming from the Middle East) has remained steady. Bush already asked for the Saudi's to increase production two times, they said no. Why are we not allowed to drill in Alaska, drill in the oceans, and build new refinaries in the United States you ask? Ask the Democrats.

As for the Kyoto Protocol, it had nothing to do with the thoughts of the United States, it was never acted on because of the blatant benefit it gave the Chinese, while giving none to the United States.

Name one instance when liberals as a group have attempted to take away a group's right to choose

You have taken away the baby's right to live.


That's a new one; Blaming the liberals for Vietnam. Remember Nixon? all the students at the colleges who were protesting? I think I remember you personally saying we lost that war because the Dems made us pull out too soon.

Vietnam is Kennedy's war, not Nixon's.
 
Top