Liberalism and Political Correctness Heralds the Destruction of America

a reply to: GodEmperor

Protecting the planet is our objective right now, if we don't protect this planet then we'll die before we can ever reach and colonize another planet. Earth is a gift and we are stomping all over it and dragging it through the dirt, that is really biting us in the ass right now isn't it?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You are ignoring the fact, that I include the republicans when I use the term 'leftist'.

Republicans and democrats, are leftist.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: GodEmperor

Protecting the planet is our objective right now, if we don't protect this planet then we'll die before we can ever reach and colonize another planet. Earth is a gift and we are stomping all over it and dragging it through the dirt, that is really biting us in the ass right now isn't it?

No it is not. This is not my opinion, or how I feel things should be. Our objective is to unite the world under one banner, under one culture, through globalism; which will culminate in a nuclear exchange due to the disagreements on who will be in charge. The next objective is developing technology to colonize space and terraform planets(including repairing Earth).

Protecting the planet is silly, Earth is a self-correcting system.

a reply to: Logarock

I think I have you beat. My ancestor John came from England in the mid 1700s. Three of his grandchildren fought in the Revolutionary War; two returned home afterward. Another of my family tree branches is Cherokee. That lineage goes far back beyond records.

But that doesn't change the fact that in my country, immigrants can become citizens. As citizens, they have all the rights and privileges I do (except the ability to be President). I accept that fact and even take pride in it. And since we are both citizens, disagreements must lead to compromise or inaction.

Our country is built on compromise. From the two houses of Congress to the Bill of Rights, compromise has been the hallmark of every positive step we have taken. There are few issues which cannot be agreed upon if both parties are open to compromise. There are precious few issues which can be resolved without compromise.

I need to mow my yard today. My friend needs help working on his car. We compromise: he helps me mow my yard and I help him on his car. Both jobs get done, instead of only one. I want our bedroom painted light blue, but my wife wants it off-white. We compromise by choosing a color we both can live with.

You want mercy for illegal immigrants and an open border. I want a wall and mass deportation. We compromise: build a wall, but consider options for illegal immigrants.

No one loses in a compromise. Both parties win a part of what they want.

The gridlock we see today in government is due to a refusal on both sides to compromise. Nothing gets done, until one party wins a lone battle, which increases resistance to future compromise and brings us lower. If you oppose compromise in principle, then you oppose any change whatsoever... save the occasional change for the worst.

TheRedneck

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Cooperation does not mean that someone changes who they are or how/where they were raised, it means to compromise with others who have different views. Those different views still exist but cooperation enriches everyone (not just one side) regardless of their views. You can have unity in diversity, it's not much different than two completely different people liking the same sports team. They may disagree on who they're voting for but they'll be right there together cheering their team on. The team we should all be rooting or is humanity regardless of what culture or ideology someone shares.

Exactly! Well said!

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm going to reflect on that comment about compromise, that is something very important and maybe I'm part of the problem.

I don't think I have the capacity to argue with anyone after reading this right now.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
It is fair, we bear the responsibility of our leaders, because we are the ones who put them there.

Cant agree on that part.

Suuuure, we go and "vote".

But only the 2 Establishment Party's are ever even remotely viable. Most people never hear the names of the "third" parties (that any and all other parties get labelled that ought to say something).

The people we get to "choose" from during the primaries are all handed to us from the Ruling Establishment. Outsiders can manage to get up there but they get drowned out during the debates via various tricks, never get airtime/etc in media, never get taken seriously etc, and then if they do break thru they get ATTACKED (i.e. labelled things like racist, crank, unelectable, etc, etc) in concert by every outlet (during the primaries).

The process is known as Electioneering. It's every bit as diabolical as straight up rigging the vote counts after. Worse actually as it goes on for like 2 years leading up to election day (it goes on ALL the time actually) this mass scale professional wrestling'esque spectator sport.

a reply to: GodEmperor

I would argue that you are correct.

The entire history of mankind is a collage of conquerors and rebellion. The first caveman probably spent his time trying to control other cavemen. All the evil we see in this world is driven by an insatiable desire to rule over others.

And my Bible tells me that is the one thing we do not have dominion over: each other.

TheRedneck

a reply to: GodEmperor



Listening is the first step to understanding.

You have made some points in this thread that I found enlightening as well.

TheRedneck

a reply to: GodEmperor

Colonizing other planets is the end goal yes, but there is more than just one step in the process up to that point and one of those steps is making sure we are here long enough to create such technology in the first place. If we keep going at the current rate we are going we won't last long enough to colonize space. Protecting Earth includes each other and other life, not just trees and environments. Earth is self-correcting but that self-correction is a process that will probably take hundreds if not thousands of years if things are bad enough, that self-correction comes with the elimination of the virus effecting it: humans.

But maybe this is the way it is meant to go with an advanced species such as ourselves, maybe we are meant to fail and be our own worst enemy. I hope not but it would make sense in a way.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm going to reflect on that comment about compromise, that is something very important and maybe I'm part of the problem.

I don't think I have the capacity to argue with anyone after reading this right now.

Starring this post. Good on you, digesting the responses to your writings and taking the time to consider them in full. This is something I would very much like to see more of here on ATS.

a reply to: TheRedneck

While I may not agree with you with regard to an ideal compromise, this is an excellent remark and I'd like to call attention to it. So profound it was that the OP saw fit to take time to consider how their reckonings jibe with yours. Well wrought, sir.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Thank you sir.

The OP has done me a great honor today, and I am humbled by it. May this be the start of a true revolution of peace and understanding.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Some thing can be compromised on ... but increasingly today the things compromise is demanded on are tied up in the Bill of Rights.

Should I compromise rights that are guaranteed to me? Why?

I have all that I want already. I have the cake, and I've already given up way too much of it. You can only lose when you are compromising your personal liberties and basic unalienable rights to those who want to curtail and regulate them.

a reply to: ketsuko

If a compromise does not satisfy both parties, it is not a compromise. Both sides must give something they are wiling to give, and receive something they want in return.

What you describe is not a compromise.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TheRedneck

Some thing can be compromised on ... but increasingly today the things compromise is demanded on are tied up in the Bill of Rights.

Should I compromise rights that are guaranteed to me? Why?

I have all that I want already. I have the cake, and I've already given up way too much of it. You can only lose when you are compromising your personal liberties and basic unalienable rights to those who want to curtail and regulate them.

Fair enough. What rights are you being asked to compromise, and what do you perceive to be the motivations of those asking you to compromise?

Yawn.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Let's see ...

1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th are all pretty much toilet paper.

We are additionally compelled to enter into commerce by our government which ought not happen in a free market economy.

The government has shown itself willing to negate contract at will lately too.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
True liberals are not emotionally driven, they completely understand the implications of their policy actions; the vast majority support liberal policy because the social engineers have appealed to their emotions.

All politics is emotionally driven. Your own post proves that because you approached nothing from the standpoint of logical causes and effects. Furthermore, even if it were logical, the same set of facts can lead to very different conclusions.

People are emotional, not logical creatures. They make decisions based on emotion, and then look at the facts and convince themselves they were following logical reasoning.

a reply to: Aazadan

People are emotional, not logical creatures. They make decisions based on emotion, and then look at the facts and convince themselves they were following logical reasoning.

Precisely. Those asking for compromise then see it as a sign of weakness when you agree and stab you in the back.