Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

Mare Tranquillity

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
3,477
This proves I know how libs think. I am so good. :)

It is amusing when libs talk about Jesus. First they know nothing about Him or Christianity. Second, they do not believe in Him and many hate Him. And lastly, please continue your unGodly ways.

"If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.... If they persecuted Me they will persecute you... for they do not know the One who sent Me." John 15:19-21

"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:10

Lord,
by shedding his blood for us,
your Son, Jesus Christ,
established the paschal mystery.
In your goodness, make us holy
and watch over us always.
We ask this through Christ, our Lord. Amen


May Jesus bless you and keep you on this most wonderful day.

Proverbs 8:13, 11:12, 14:3, 16:18. While you may pride yourself on your own wisdom, you may not be as wise as you claim. Proverbs has a lot to say about pride.
 
Werbung:

palerider

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
4,624
Proverbs 8:13, 11:12, 14:3, 16:18. While you may pride yourself on your own wisdom, you may not be as wise as you claim. Proverbs has a lot to say about pride.

Pobably wouldn't hurt you to consider those yourself. It is you, after all, who goes about demanding special rights because of your sexual preference. Pretty prideful expecting special rights because of something like that.
 

Mare Tranquillity

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
3,477
Pobably wouldn't hurt you to consider those yourself. It is you, after all, who goes about demanding special rights because of your sexual preference. Pretty prideful expecting special rights because of something like that.

Equality is not an issue of pride. It's your sexual preference that allows you to marry the person you love, why should there be a double standard just because of whom a person loves?

I think the pride comes in when one demands and accepts privileges that they deny to others. I don't do that, I am for equality, I will not demand privileges for myself that I would deny to you, you can't honestly say that.
 

Gipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
6,077
Location
Winter Wonderland
Here is a very good history lesson for libs since they usually know nothing about history and in particular, how the Dem party is a racist party.

Also the author lies out the Dems current racist political strategies very well.

The ends justify the means...and they intend to use whatever means possible.

More than three times as many Democratic senators (21) as Republicans (6) voted against the Civil Rights Act in 1964; in the House,
the "no" votes came from 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans. In both chambers, greater percentages of Republicans than Democrats supported both bills, by significant margins. For example, 82 percent of Senate Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as opposed to 69 percent of Democrats; for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 97 percent of Republican senators voted yes, versus 74 percent of the Democrats.

So, blacks and perhaps Hispanics, among others, became the new and increasingly dependent beneficiaries of racial preference. Other "peoples of color," such as Indians and Asians, perceived as intent on self-reliance, generally were not among the favored. Thus, the same old game resumed, with a cynical new arrangement of pieces on the playing board. Once again, the Democrats sought gain through divisive means, playing on fear and resentment.

Today, many Americans are unhappy that Congress has enacted, in a dramatically partisan fashion, sweeping "health care" legislation that entails unprecedented federal interference in doctor-patient relationships, an array of new and higher taxes, and unsustainable increases in government spending. Similarly unwelcome are the union sweeteners, the student loan takeover and the "expert" panels that will restrict access to medications and treatments.

Perhaps most outrageous is the (underreported) fact that our "ruling elite" have exempted themselves from the regime being imposed on the rest of us. If it's such a good thing, why do you suppose they carved themselves out of it? In sum, there are a multitude of grounds on which Americans oppose Obamacare.

In response, the Democrats revert to Jim Crow tactics: Change the subject via personal attacks. They hurl accusations of "racism," and use the vulgar sexual innuendo "tea-bagger" to assail fellow Americans who oppose the administration's aggressive expansion of federal power.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/07/democrats-reek-of-george-wallace/
 

Gipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
6,077
Location
Winter Wonderland
Here is more proof liberals have lost their minds....
Stalin bust has Virginia town red-faced
Communist dictator deemed unworthy of D-Day recognition


20100607-210216-pic-928631069_s640x427.jpg

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/7/stalin-bust-has-virginia-town-red-faced/
 

Gipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
6,077
Location
Winter Wonderland
Stalin was involved with D-Day??? Really??? I guess to liberals he was.

Stalin Storms Omaha Beach
The National D-Day Memorial has added a bust of Joseph Stalin.

By JOHN FUND

This past Sunday marked the unveiling of a very curious bust at the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Virginia. The memorial's board chose the 66th anniversary of the Normandy invasion to add a bust of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin to accompany the busts already in place of FDR, Harry Truman and Winston Churchill.

Lee Edwards, chairman of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, minced no words about what he regards as an inexplicable addition: "Since the fall of the Soviet Union, statues of Joseph Stalin have been torn down all over Europe. The world is closer than ever before to a consensus on the evils of communism and Stalin's primary role in the worst crimes of the last century."

Added Karl Altau, head of the Baltic American National Committee: "No matter what they do to explain [Stalin's presence], it's still going to put him on the same kind of level as the other leaders and their troops who were there at D-Day."

A last-minute plaque was added noting Stalin's crimes as well as his role as a WWII ally, but critics still wonder what can justify the presence of a tyrant whose troops didn't even play a role in the D-Day landings. William McIntosh, president of the D-Day Memorial Foundation, hasn't been returning calls from reporters, but previously said his group merely wanted to note Stalin's role in winning the war. That answer is not likely to quiet the furor.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...965298806.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
 

dahermit

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
1,916
Liberal = any one who is not a rabid conservative?

And of course, all liberals are in favor or honoring Stalin with a bust commemorating his "contribution" to the D-day invasion?

The truth be known, it is arguable that the people of the Soviet Union contributed to the success of the D-day landing by providing the bulk of the resistance to the Nazi control of Europe. At least 80% or more of the resources of the Nazi war machine were occupied in the east. Several battles in the east dwarfed the battles in the west. If it were not for the efforts of the Soviet people, the D-day invasion would likely have not succeeded.

As for Stalin's contribution, it was mostly negative starting with the weakening of his pre-WWII purges of the the soviet officer corps. Also, his poor planning, poor leadership, poor decisions likely were all counter productive to the war effort. The Soviet Union prevailed despite his control.
 

Gipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
6,077
Location
Winter Wonderland
Liberal = any one who is not a rabid conservative?

And of course, all liberals are in favor or honoring Stalin with a bust commemorating his "contribution" to the D-day invasion?

The truth be known, it is arguable that the people of the Soviet Union contributed to the success of the D-day landing by providing the bulk of the resistance to the Nazi control of Europe. At least 80% or more of the resources of the Nazi war machine were occupied in the east. Several battles in the east dwarfed the battles in the west. If it were not for the efforts of the Soviet people, the D-day invasion would likely have not succeeded.

As for Stalin's contribution, it was mostly negative starting with the weakening of his pre-WWII purges of the the soviet officer corps. Also, his poor planning, poor leadership, poor decisions likely were all counter productive to the war effort. The Soviet Union prevailed despite his control.

So, to conclude, you see no problem with a government funded museum displaying the bust of Stalin to honor his contribution to defeating Germany?
 

Gipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
6,077
Location
Winter Wonderland
Yeah THC here is a good thread for you to review so that you can find out what a liberal is.

I particularly like the words by Churchill in the post directly above this one.

Happy reading and when you have completed your lesson, lets talk.
 

Gipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
6,077
Location
Winter Wonderland
simple fact is, no Stalin, the UK speaks German....

Again your lack of historical knowledge speaks volumns.

Do you really believe the Germans had the ability to invade Great Britain? They had no landing craft capable of an amphibious assault. The Brits unlike the Brits today, were a tough people prepared to fight to the death and lead by one of the greatest leaders of all time.

Plus you fail to recognize that the USA would not have let Britain fall to the Nazis.

Plus you fail to recognize that Britain still had a huge navy and air force after they lost at Dunkirk. Dunkirk ended in June 1940 when both Germany and your beloved USSR WERE F-ING ALLIES.

A year later in June '41 Hitler invaded your beloved USSR. Hitler was not prevented from trying to invade Great Britain by anything your Dear Leader Stalin was doing. They were F-ING ALLIES...

So to conclude today's elementary history lesson for liberals, Stalin had absolutely nothing to do with keeping Germany from conquering Great Britain.

It is amazing the lengths libs will go to commend a communist dictator who murdered millions.
 

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
Thread Necromancy...

I was recently in a discussion with a member of this forum who presented a study from Stanford that supposedly represented a psychological profile of conservatives. Aside from the fact that no conservatives were spoken to as a part of this “study”, some of the prime examples the “study” held up as examples of conservative thought were among the most notorious leftist tyrants of the 20th century. Joseph Stalin, Lenin, chairman Mao, and Pol Pot were apparently studies in conservativism.

When I challenged this member on the leftist authoritarians the study held up as examples of conservativism, he replied “

"Authoritarian" views are certainly not liberal views, they are a trait of conservative ideology.”

I challenged the member to a philosophical discussion on the merits of that statement but apparently he wasn’t up to it. With, or without him, however, I believe that it is an important topic. Far too few modern liberals (and modern conservatives) expend any appreciable intellectual wattage considering their respective philosophies and what life would be like if they were allowed to proceed to their logical end. I am going to discuss the totalitarian nature of modern liberalism but if any of you “liberal philosophers” cares to offer up a thoughtful discussion of conservativism, by all means, do so.

Consider modern liberalism. It is a political philosophy that claims equality and equal freedom as its ultimate goal. Ask any liberal to describe their philosophy and without fail, you will get some variation of “live and let live. In an effort to achieve this goal, however, liberalism requires supervision of everything. Its multicultural ideal excludes and stigmatizes regular people and in order to enforce its equality, it uses quotas, speech codes, and mandatory sensitivity training in politically correct attitudes and opinions. Clearly, there is little connection between those things and “live and let live”.

Liberals prize tolerance, but what they call tolerance is not tolerance at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but tolerance means letting people do what they want. Modern liberals, however have redefined tolerance (redefinition – a nasty habit of modern liberals) to mean a requirement of equal respect across the social spectrum. True tolerance requires live and let live, but the tolerance of the modern liberal requires an ever more invasive bureaucratic control of every aspect of our social lives. An ideology that “requires” equal respect across the social spectrum must, by definition be intolerant because it must try to control the attitudes that people have towards one another and any real attempt to that end will require means that are both inflexible and tyrannical.

Lets compare two states. One is the conservative ideal and the other is the modern liberal ideal. In the conservative state, you can say and do pretty much whatever you like so long as you do not violate certain established rights. The conservative state doesn’t care whether you are tolerant or intolerant so long as you don’t physically attack others or damage their property. The conservative state, as a result may be very critical of certain social failures, as it would have a very limited social welfare system. In the conservative sate, you would be free to succeed or fail with interference from the state being limited to enforcing those clearly defined rights that were spoken of earlier.

In the homogenous welfare state that modern liberals favor, however, things would be quite different. In its effort to promote equal respect and tolerance across the social spectrum, the modern liberal state will find that it must necessarily be very intolerant of ways of life that it defines as sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. By establishing quotas, the state will force people to associate with others against their will, literally denying them the right to choose what sorts of people they will live near and work with.

The liberal state will necessarily be uable to accept that ethnic loyalties, and religious and sexual distinctions form the structures by which all people organize their lives and as a result will find that it must, in fact, be intolerant of all real ways of life and must, by force of law, reconstruct them. This new tolerance as found in the modern liberal state means that no one, with the exception of a few elite ideologues gets to carry out his or her life by their own design.

The ideology of modern liberalism with regard to tolerance seems to be based on the idea that each person is as good as every other person and whatever a person likes is good for him. In order to believe this, however, one must accept that one way of living is as good as all other ways of living because to suggest that one way was better or worse than another would by definition be an act of intolerance. This is a very peculiar, and very specific moral theory. One must view each person impartially as valuable, but everything else as valuable only as defined by the individual. A society that holds such a moral theory must therefore define anyone who holds a moral code that recognizes any sort of absolute good or bad as intolerant.

Since modern liberalism holds such a narrow and dubious moral theory that very few people indeed actually hold, how then, is it any different from old “theocratic” systems that it labels as intolerant? Is it better, somehow, to be indoctrinated in the dogma and delusion of all inclusiveness than that of one church or another? A panel of civil rights lawyers, after all, is certainly no more forgiving than a panel of robed priests and in all likelihood, less forgiving.

Upon close examination it is evident that modern liberalism does indeed hold all of the elements necessary to become authoritarian and totalitarian and in practice has already exhibited a streak of tyranny ranging from mandatory sensitivity training to the “thought police” mentality of actually punishing criminals more harshly based on what they may have been thinking when they committed their particular crime. In the name of equal freedom and equality for all, modern liberalism is willing to empower government bureaucracy to make us all, by force if necessary, into its image.

I don't believe it is possible to defend the member's statement that "authoritarian views are certainly not liberal views" It may be true that liberals don't see themselves and their philosophy as authoritarian but that, in and of itself, is sad in that it is evidence that they have not invested much thought into thier philosophy and carried it to its logical end. The great leftist tyrants of the 20th century weren't expressing conservative ideals, they were simply men who were able to carry liberal theory to its logical end.

What a great post... Sorry I didn't see this a long time ago. The only thing I would disagree with is the idea that Conservatives would agree to a live and let live society... I break with Conservatives on issues where they seek to control the lives of individuals who are not violating the rights of anyone, like same sex marriage and the war on drugs. The current "Conservative" ideal too would eventually become authoritarian because they believe the government's role encompasses more than being strictly limited to the protection of our individual rights... Any government that isn't strictly limited to the protection of our individual rights will necessarily become authoritarian.
 
Werbung:

Gipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
6,077
Location
Winter Wonderland
That is a great post. Pale tends to do that with regularity.

How does one believe the leftist monsters of the 20th century were conservatives? That is a perfect example of a useful idiot.

How is it the we conservatives can see these things so clearly, but liberals can't?

Liberalism is tyranny. Conservatism is liberty...individual liberty. But libs are blame to this and the consequences of liberalism.

Thanks for re-posting that Gen and thanks to Pale for writing it. If only libs could learn from it.
 
Top