Printable View
Panz, Socialism has little do with Liberalism. Atleast here in Sweden, Socialist and Liberals tend to despise each other. Tho the political climate is far from that of america, we have no party as conservative as the Republicans and so on. (Thank God)Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Indeed that was the point I made when I set that little line... But it doesn't seem to get through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazul
Freedom? Lack of imposition? The name may suggest these, but that is mere PR. Liberalism requires a variety of impositions a freedom restrictions. The freedom of opinion and expression thereof is restricted. While sodomites can go around skrieching "Equal rights of gays and lesbians, and whomever else joins in the marches" and "Down with homophobia", those who dislike sodomy, view it as wrong, et cetera, would be blasted by liberal-types as being evil, oppresive, fascist, and some other such things, even if they did not go on a march.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Yeah, King Malcom has a valid point.
While I feel like being liberal (in France, we'd say socialist), I think liberals are clearly biased toward freedom of speech. As long as it may be useful to them, they're all for it, but someone who disagrees will quickly be qualified as 'wrong', 'stupid', 'conservative', 'religious freak' or even 'fascist' or 'nazi'.
I don't really support the gay movement (well, I don't really care about it), but the fact that homophoby (sp?) is now illegal in France sounds silly to me.
That depends on how it is illegal. If it is illegal to say you are a homophobe and don't like homosexuals, but don't exactly search for them, then it is wrong. But it is not wrong if it is there to protect the homosexuals from verbal and physical abuse, or any other kind of discimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Personally I have chosen not to look up homosexuals, and I consider myself fairly homophobic, but I have learned to blank out the images I get and can thus have easy relations with them should I happen to share a space with them.
I served in the navy with a homosexual girl, and I know another guy was homosexual. Yes I did avoid taking showers when he was in it, but that was the extent of it, because he was no different than the rest of us, he even joked around with it.
It's now illegal to make 'homophobic statements'. Quite unclear, which will hopefully allow all far left associations to sue everyone who doesn't support gays nad lesbians movement
And I don't see someone claiming 'I don't like gays' in France, because he would be killed on sight.
wow that doesnt sound very democratic to me. I mean ok there should be prevented incidents where people can be physicly abused just because they are gay but how do they define verbal abuse? They enlisted all the possible bad or ironic words? I mean if this happens for gays shouldnt it extend to fat guys, bald guys, big noses, glasses, braces or i dont know what else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Why so much special leagal care for something that just needs good old everyday politeness?
Thats a good point - labels are different everywhere. From my examples i hope you understand the mindset I am against.Quote:
Panz, Socialism has little do with Liberalism. Atleast here in Sweden, Socialist and Liberals tend to despise each other. Tho the political climate is far from that of america, we have no party as conservative as the Republicans and so on. (Thank God)
Exactly, its called the thought police in some circles ~;) . They have become very agressive in imposing their mentality on everyone else.Quote:
Freedom? Lack of imposition? The name may suggest these, but that is mere PR. Liberalism requires a variety of impositions a freedom restrictions. The freedom of opinion and expression thereof is restricted. While sodomites can go around skrieching "Equal rights of gays and lesbians, and whomever else joins in the marches" and "Down with homophobia", those who dislike sodomy, view it as wrong, et cetera, would be blasted by liberal-types as being evil, oppresive, fascist, and some other such things, even if they did not go on a march.
Ridiculous. It only goes to support my statement:Quote:
It's now illegal to make 'homophobic statements'. Quite unclear, which will hopefully allow all far left associations to sue everyone who doesn't support gays nad lesbians movement
Im glad to see some other Europeans waking up to the fact that buzzwords like racism and intolorence can sometimes be used to serve an agenda.Quote:
That progression does have stopping point and I believe we have reached it in America and Europe, although Europe just kept right on going.
More and more in Europe, and America to a lesser extent, laws are being passed that are supposed to control your expression and your opinions. You are allowed to make value judgements on how other people live their lives - you dont have to feel bad about knowing in your heart that something is wrong!
Liberals once fought for the concept of "Hate the sin, love the sinner", which was noble, but now they are fighting for "Love the sin, love the sinner".
PJ, actually, it wasn't meant to counter your statement ^^
Lol i know, i was agreeing. ~;)
Hum, that's the last time I'll agree with you this month, I'm still not used to it. It does confuse my poor mind ~;)
I think this whole 'liberal' obsession in America is a manifestation of the 'enemy within' phenomena that occur from time to time in society. The target is always vague - yet has figureheads and hate figures. Also there tends to be a strong packing tendancy among the supporters of such mini-pogroms.
Witches, Catholics, Blacks, Jews, Chinese, Indians, Counter-revolutionaries, communists, liberals, etc. History is littered with examples of these campaigns. They all have a few features in common:
- they pick an enemy whose crimes are vague
- the enemy is never the majority
- the campaign appeals most to young men, especially those attracted to military and violent solutions
- the enemy is always out of favour or insignificant to the current government
Fortunately we live in an age where there aren't actually mock trials, etc. Most of this current campaign is just a media storm in a teacup. However the efforts by people to curry status within the group by saying how anti-liberal they are, and how extreme they would be on issue x follows a well trammelled path.
This explains why the anti-liberal thing doesn't travel well outside the US. The only support it gets in the UK/Europe are when it taps into a different political dynamic - the disgruntled young male Conservative/Christian Democrat/etc voter (about 0.5% of the population ~D )
In Europe generally liberal not only means something different, but there is no clear enemy within that can be identified by the current politcal party in power.
well spoken Idaho :bow:
Excellent (and accurate) phrase. We'll see how PBS is bullied into compliance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I also think in the US the liberal/conservative false dichotomy is used to pretend that there is actually any daylight between the two corporate/capitalist political groups.
Well said. It appears to be part of a siege mentality related to foreign commitments, as during WWI, WWII and Cold War, with the Red Scare, fifth column scare (think of detained American Japanese) and McCarthyism respectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I don't know, when the public schools are teaching 5th graders how to properly fist their partner and teenage girls can have abortions without parental consent but can't take an aperine at school, then yes, liberalism IS a problem.
Heh theres nothing vague about the people who are ruining this country and have already ruined europe(politically speaking).Quote:
I think this whole 'liberal' obsession in America is a manifestation of the 'enemy within' phenomena that occur from time to time in society. The target is always vague - yet has figureheads and hate figures. Also there tends to be a strong packing tendancy among the supporters of such mini-pogroms.
Witches, Catholics, Blacks, Jews, Chinese, Indians, Counter-revolutionaries, communists, liberals, etc. History is littered with examples of these campaigns. They all have a few features in common:
- they pick an enemy whose crimes are vague
- the enemy is never the majority
- the campaign appeals most to young men, especially those attracted to military and violent solutions
- the enemy is always out of favour or insignificant to the current government
Fortunately we live in an age where there aren't actually mock trials, etc. Most of this current campaign is just a media storm in a teacup. However the efforts by people to curry status within the group by saying how anti-liberal they are, and how extreme they would be on issue x follows a well trammelled path.
This explains why the anti-liberal thing doesn't travel well outside the US. The only support it gets in the UK/Europe are when it taps into a different political dynamic - the disgruntled young male Conservative/Christian Democrat/etc voter (about 0.5% of the population )
In Europe generally liberal not only means something different, but there is no clear enemy within that can be identified by the current politcal party in power.
I gave clear examples of the mentality and i can give you examples of how it has affected the country negatively. You deny that there are many people with the mentality i spoke of? Its all just imaginary? ~:rolleyes:
Wow, this is great, I get to use the same response to conservative paranoia in two different threads!Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Panzer, please see below:
How exactly are liberals ruining you country when conservatives are in complete control of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Hehe, look at history. The communists didnt control russia but through the media, lies, and propaganda changed the whole mindset of the nation for the worst.
You dont need to control the government to propagate this mentality:
Quote:
political correctness, historical revisionism, abortion, socialism in all its forms, anti-religious stances, governmental dependency, euthanasia, amoral science, minority apologism, and of course changing the definition of the family unit
You know Soviet Unit had alot of bad but alot of good stuff also. I dont think that the total image evil match. At least thats what i know by talking to many friends and visiting several times. LIke it or not they had the best medical care and educational system. I dont argue that they treated people as puzzle pieces, everyone had his prearanged place, but there i met many seemingly average low class people with huge education.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
No doubt - but seeing as you have just made this up wtf does it have to do with reality?Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Really? Can I have some concrete examples. Some direct quotes, references etc? Or are you just fizzing at the bunghole like Dave?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
*Hoo boy.*
Let's get back on topic shall we?
Ok then, Rampantly Red: Demon
Social conservative: Navaros...
Fiscally I am not sure at all
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=17490Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
read it for yourself, realities a bitch. Would you want the public school teaching your twins how to have oral sex with each other... think about it.
Does anyone here other than me wave the black flag? If not I'd probably take one of these prizes ~;).
And here's your lib buddies at the ACLU... put that in your bunghole, I'm sure there are plenty on your side that will help you...Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Could anyone please explain who's fizzing where? Or give some links or direct quotes that refer to good old reality?Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Only in Arkansas Dave. ~;p