As I said, it's not wrong to question.....and working toward fairness for everyone is fine. The thing is, see.....the Left, in its quest to legislate and/or adjudicate fairness and prosperity in life and society, instead creates less of each. I can't really explain it properly, any more than I already have.
"Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent."---Quinn's First Law.
That about sums it up. |
I think you mean the "far left," I mean...I'm left, and i can think of several "lefties" i know, who are not like that. So...my thought on it is, we should start accepting that there is:
Far Left
Left
Center
Right
Far Right
There, now we have the far left/right (i.e. the extreme/radical/fundimentalists), and the Left/Righ (i.e. moderate left/right), and the Center/Centrists. This classification solves everything.
Alas, instead there is just lumping together. I.e. "Lefties are all alike," versus "righties are all alike." It's total BS.
Look....do you honestly think a people who would support, indeed PAY, sucide bombers to do what they do....would support, and cheer for, the flying of hijacked jets full of innocents into skyscrapers full of same, would heistate to use a nuclear weapon if they had one? I don't....and don't think this should be a "wait and see" moment, either.
You, yourself, have pointed out the "diversity" in thought, morals, etc., of differing peoples, yet, like others of your view, you seemingly refuse to assign this same ideal to our Muslim enemies. You treat them as if they're just like us. They're not.
They don't think like us, Lucas. Sometimes, it seems, they don't even bother to think. They just hate and rage. Lying and deception is a virtue, especially when dealing with infidels like us. They're different.
And yes, enough intelligence sources from around th world have found enough evidence that yes, they are trying to obtain nuclear material/weapons. Once again, should we wait and see? Nope. |
How about those who support the death penalty? Those who help finance abortion? If you are against people supporting things that take lives (NO matter what the 'reason' or such is), then are you against what i mentioned?
Now, I don't not think that they are diverse...at least, i dont mean to not think that. I just intend to point out that, yet again, not all are alike. Just becaue muslim A is a terrorist, does not mean that muslim B is. Ya know?
Mainly because this dictionary definition of a political philosophy is so very far removed from the reality. Liberals claim freedom of speech as one of their main tenets, except when it's a conservative voice or opinion being raised. Then they want to shout it down or somehow discredit it.
They vocally espouse personal freedoms, but will simultaneously champion the Gestapo tactics of the PC ideal. They also call for more and more laws restricting personal behavior---"hate crime" laws, for example; gun control laws, for another. But, by the same token, when laws or actions are called for by the "other side" that may somehow restrict "personal freedoms" --i.e. the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretapping....that's a no-no.
They'll protest prisoner executions one day, and attend a pro-abortion rally the next. There's a name for it: Hypocrisy. |
It's not because they are liberal, or their ideology. It is them, the individual themselves. They, just like Osama, have perverted liberalism, and molded it, or such - into their own..."flavor."
Me, I'm against the PA and NSA wire tapping. I mean, who is going to declare who is a terrorist or not. There is a possibility that the power to authorize it could be in/fall into the wrong hands. Then what?
I'm against the death penalty, but i support the *right* for a woman to choose. I don't like abortions, and strongly support alternatives (abstinance, adoption, birth control, etc...).
"Diversity.....different morals, traditions....etc." We're all different, right?....there is no absolute "Truth"...no absolute "morality". Moral Relativism. That's what's destroying us. We're no longer allowed to have "Definite" views or standards of anything. Too bad our enemies in Islamic Fundamentalism don't see it the same way. We could maybe fight this whole thing out by hitting each other with Nerf bats, so no one gets hurt. First one that bends a bat is out.
Yours is the view that has been propagated since the Leftist revoltuion of the 1960s and 70s; it completely ignores the fact that our nation, with its "traditionalist" views of Diversity, Truth and Morality, grew and prospered quite well, from a small band of colonies into a major world power, for 190 years prior. IN LESS THAN 190 years, I might add. This just has to change, right?
Conservatives can, and do, co-exist with the liberals. We do it quite well, if a little sarcastically. It's the liberals who cannot abide us and our opinions.
We, for example, are not the ones freely using the Judicial branch to manipulate or bypass the Legislative and Executive, or to impose our views and ideals on the general society at large. That priviledge seems to be reserved, overall, for the Left. |
Perhaps it does, but that doesn't disclude the fact that the way we were found, what we were founded on...has changed. Hundreds of years, millions of immigrants, multiple generations has changed it all. We cannot sit stubbornly, willfully, on traditionalism. With time comes change, no matter how much you don't want it, it is going to happen.
It grew quite well? Erm, dude...Civil War, Black rights movement, Womens rights movement, to name a few. Do those sound like "quite well," to you?
Perhaps you can, I can as well, and I'm liberal. Something that needs to be noted, is that (and I state it yet again), NOT ALL LIBERALS ARE THE SAME. Just because the fringe of it has control/more visibility than the moderate, does not mean that we are all the same.
Nyet, what about gay marriage? Terry Schiavo? (to name a few) Those cases results were "right wing."
You mean IT'S NOT?
Yes, this is true....but then, we allowed ourselves to accept the truth. Read that book I told you about....you'll see what I mean here. So much of what liberals look upon as dogma is based in the misdirection and misrepresentation, and even the outright fabrication, of essential facts.
I know...conservatives do tell lies, too.....the main difference is that, when a liberal is caught in a lie, the forces in his corner---including the media---will very often go to bat and cover for him/her. When a conservative is caught, his reputation is destroyed or marred for life. For example:
Witness the smearing of conservative author Bill Bennet; he wrote a conservative tome called "The Book of Virtues". It was soon "discovered" that he had a penchant for gambling. He wasn't actually "caught" in a "lie", but rather what some considered to be a conflict of views. He was widely and publicly pounded in the media and liberal literary circles.
On the other hand, we have uber-liberal Ward Churchill, whose entire life, literally, has been an intricate series of fabrications, misrepresentations and general spin. His lies have been exposed many times, but he's still considered a liberal icon.
That, Lucas, is one of the main differences between the two. |
LOL
Eh, i disagree. I don't think that it is based on "misdirection, misrepresentation" or the like.
Eh, not necessarily. His reputation is hurt, but you have two out comes: A) They are forgiven, and chance (or dont), and B) They get hurt badly, and are not forgiven.
How do you know he is an icon? Where, how, why? Provide me evidence that proves that he is, like....say, every liberal in the US stating that he is. Then we'll talk. (
)
Now, a lot of that is the media. I admit that the MSM is biased, one way or another. However, it also lives to sell, and if it can get a lot of "selling" done, through leaning a certain way...then it will do it. "Honest Journalism, is becoming an oxymoron more and more everyday." ~From a close friend, whom is heading into journalism.
So self-sacrifice in the name of a god, or even of a people being wronged, isn't acceptable? Nope....I guess you're really not a Christian. For sure. Maybe you're not even a liberal.
As to the Muslims;
The "brave, noble" Islamic "Martyrs" and "Freedom Fighters" do it every day. Yet those "moderates" whose "peaceful" faith is being smeared by their actions can't find the courage in their hearts to oppose them? Even vocally? Why is that? |
Perhaps, they want to live. Perhaps, because they are moderate enough. Who knows, I haven't asked one yet. (
) My thoughts on it, is that they just want to live; they feel lucky enough to be alive where they are, and are not going to fark it up.
There is sacrifice in the name of God, then there is stupidity.
How can you serve God when you are dead? Or, better yet, what good are you dead?
(LOL I am a bad 'christian', and liberal. Tsk Tsk Tsk. )
| Well....questioning ourselves is almost always good; it keeps us true to ourselves....except when being faced with an obvious threat. In wartime, you have to act, and act decisively; a nation of people can't afford to question itself. That's for peacetime, when such luxuries are permissable. You have time then. |
That's why I prefer peace.
Fine; you're a moderate liberal. But let's not forget that one of the things many liberals attempt to undermine is religious---mainly Judeo-Christian---faith. The ACLU works actively at it. Your "Spiritism" is fine by them, as, it seems, are all other faiths; Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, even Vampirism....so it wouldn't affect you very much.
If indeed you disagree with this view, this erasing of all specific, Judeo-Christian symbols and ideals from public, government-funded view, fine.....but you need to take a vocal stand against those zealots on your side who work at it. |
The funny thing is, Spiritism, has many bases in juedo-christianity.
I think, if it is private property, it is up to the discretion of the owner. If it is gov't property, then i think that it is best to lean towards 'neutral' icons. (Xmass trees, lights, etc...)
(Alas, with that rabbi, it may seem like xmass trees are not so neutral anymore. *sighs*)
| They sit on an ocean of oil. Gas there costs maybe 1/10th of what it does here. Do the math. |
Eh, we (at one time) sat on large quantities of oil, but still we had alternative (nuclear included) fuels researched.
Now, I'm not saying the are or are not. I'm just waiting until I can see it with my eyes.
I do agree with this; how many years did Voice of America and Radio Free Europe broadcast into the Iron Curtain countries? I don't like the idea of the use of blatant propaganda, though; we did it, and do it, but too much of it is based in complete fabrication and lies. Leave that to the enemies of democracy.
Thing is, there comes a time when action is called for. Words only go so far; rebels and spies have to be recruited and supplied...arms have to be smuggled in to them. Violent and destructive ation has to be employed, or at least implied.
As I say, VOA and RFE did their thing for years, but in the end it took direct economic manipulation and subtle military action to finally bring down the USSR and its satellites. |
If it is honest, and forceful enough, then i would go for it. That's fine with me, support them, but don't engage directly. I mean, wasn't it nicuragua, where we funded rebels who succesfully overthrew the gov't? It works.
