60 Hard Truths About Liberals

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   
?

Seekerof, is he always like that?




posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Still avoiding the issues presented with a rather crude display of testosterone? If you’re going to try for the offensive, do try and being a b it more subtle. It does require some what more creativity but its more entertaining then the pedestrian.

Is this the way I always am he asks? I reflect what is offered to me.

And axiomatically will be a door mat for no man.

See ya ‘round the campus boys.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Scofe, et al.

I would like to suggest the writings of the political philosopher John Kekes. His writing is along the lines of these 60 points, although he doesn't present his arguments from a Christian standpoint. He DOES focus on the liberal refusal to acknowledge the moral consequence of behavior.

Kekes' greatest work is "AGAINST LIBERALISM"

it is a thin work, but tightly packed with ideas. I found a cheap copy at B & N.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by gmcnulty
Still avoiding the issues presented


from what i see, youre the one avoiding the issue, are you too coward to despute what was said or will you keep going on about how others view your side, stop worrying about how someone views your ideals, comeon, point out what isnt true, whats exaggerated, skewed and whatever else you think, stop avoiding things or many will view you as a coward who wont stand up for his views.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by gmcnulty, I am a conservative.


umm if you say so...i dont think you know what you are, if youre going to debate dont be a coward and claim you are something youre not, obviously youre not conservative by the way you responded to the first post.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Do you call me a liar?

I am and remain a Goldwater conservative.............the brand not in current fashion today……… and what is now being used as a code name and/or cover for an ungodly oppressive anti-intellectual bigoted form of two-faced expression, bastardization and poor excuse of a political philosophy..........

Now if you mean that one............you're correct.

I'm no Konservative; I’m a conservative.

There is a difference and one I expect you're not aware of................



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Dr_Strangecraft, thanks for the info, Ill see if I can find it on Amazon.



McNutty, the only "issues presented" by you is alleging that my post was "slander".

You seem like you have an above average vocabulary. Im suprised you dont know what slander is.

Slander is impossible without naming a specific individual. Slandering liberals as a generalized group is not possible.

Look it up dude. Also, In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed that only factual misrepresentation is to be considered libel or slander, not expression of opinion.

You have been owned. Bye bye.

[edit on 6-6-2004 by ScoFe]



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Ok well at least let me tell you a bit about myself, an avowed and raging liberal:

I love life, and individuality! Viva! I believe that I'm quite individual and I don't really follow many labels.

I really don't have a problem with the rich in general. Good on ya for working hard enough to be that sucessful. At the same time though being rich also means that one must aid those less fortunate then themselves, and this justifies higher taxes, and large donations of time and money to charitable causes.

I like most of masculinity, I'm a male so I guess I should. I like football (soccer to you Americans, Arsenal in the Brit Prem, good on ya lads, and France in the world cup Allez! Allez!) But I do not believe that the traditionally male traits should be for males alone, my girlfriend is a big football fan too (Aston Villa and Spain.) In fact the most raging football fan I know is a woman (and she cheers for Man U no less!)

I'm a Pagan, I believe that my morals are very solid. I believe in the Wiccan idea of help all harm none, but there are times when violence is moral, when all other options are exausted.

I'm straight, but I am a major actvist for LGBT rights. Homosexuals should be allowed to wed as a basic human right. I also believe though that it is a religion's right who they wish to wed within their group. If your religion does not support homosexual marriage, you should still allow the government to wed them, it doesn't hurt you one bit and the world won't end. Relax.

I believe in helping the poor, we must work to better conditions for those less fortunate than we are, wasn't that a major part of the message of the carpenter from Israel that you guys say was god? He had a lot on the ball, great guy and a major liberal.

I also believe in enlightened debate, and a free marketplace of ideas.

Now I am a fairly experenced person, and I know that most of the conservatives on here are set in their ideas and my words won't affect them much, but hear me out.

I'm out to help the world, not destroy it
I'm out to help people express their individuality, not repress and shame them for it
I'm all for equality, be it economic, social, sexual, racial, religious or anything else. If that makes me a socialist, or communist, or any other label you wish to put on me, fine, I'll wear it with pride.

~Astral



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Political philosopher John Kekes! PLEASE, spare me. Kekes writes against egalitarianism as he makes the magical leap and equates it to liberalism. A real stretch of logic if I might add……….Since you force me let me add some light to this insanity of ignorance with some factual information………..after reading and some due consideration, PLEASE…………..tell me what element of liberalism you are against and why.

This is what liberalism is………….it’s not what Rush says it is……….TRUST ME, he distorts and lies to you………..


EGALITARIANISM -
Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people. The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
LIBERALISM -

1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2.
a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
b. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
LIBERALISM: GOALS
Liberalism is a philosophy or movement that has as its aim the development of individual freedom.
Because the concepts of liberty or freedom change in different historical periods the specific programs of liberalism also change. The final aim of liberalism, however, remains fixed, as does its characteristic belief not only in essential human goodness but also in human rationality. Liberalism assumes that people, having a rational intellect, have the ability to recognize problems and solve them and thus can achieve systematic improvement in the human condition.

Often opposed to liberalism is the doctrine of conservatism, which, simply stated, supports the maintenance of the status quo. Liberalism, which seeks what it considers to be improvement or progress, necessarily desires to change the existing order.

Origins of Liberalism
Neither individualism nor the beliefs that freedom is a primary political good are immutable laws of history. Only in the Western world in the last several centuries have they assumed such importance as social factors that they could be blended into a political creed. Although Christianity had long taught the worth of the individual soul and the Renaissance had placed a value upon individualism in limited circles, it was not until the Reformation that the importance of independent individual thought and action were expressed in the teachings of Protestantism.
At the same time, centralizing monarchs were destroying feudalism and alongside the nobility arose the bourgeoisie, a new social class that demanded the right to function in society, especially commercially, without restriction. This process took several centuries, and it may be said that the first philosopher to offer a complete liberal doctrine of individual freedom was the Englishman John Locke. From this period on the doctrines of classical liberalism were evolved.
Classical Liberalism – Its focus
Classical liberalism stressed not only human rationality but the importance of individual property rights, natural rights, the need for constitutional limitations on government, and, especially, freedom of the individual from any kind of external restraint. Classical liberalism drew upon the ideals of the Enlightenment and the doctrines of liberty supported in the American and French revolutions. The Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason, was characterized by a belief in the perfection of the natural order and a belief that natural laws should govern society. Logically it was reasoned that if the natural order produces perfection, then society should operate freely without interference from government. The writings of such men as Adam Smith, , Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill mark the height of such thinking.
In Great Britain and the United States the classic liberal program, including the principles of representative government, the protection of civil liberties, and laissez-faire economics, had been more or less effected by the mid-19th cent. The growth of industrial society, however, soon produced great inequalities in wealth and power, which led many persons, especially workers, to question the liberal creed. It was in reaction to the failure of liberalism to provide a good life for everyone that workers' movements and Marxism arose. Because liberalism is concerned with liberating the individual, however, its doctrines changed with the change in historical realities.
Liberalism in the Twentieth Century
By 1900, L. T. Hobhouse and T. H. Green began to look to the state to prevent oppression and to advance the welfare of all individuals. Liberal thought was soon stating that the government should be responsible for providing the minimum conditions necessary for decent individual existence. In the early 20th century, in Great Britain and France and later in the United States, the welfare state came into existence, and social reform became an accepted governmental role.
In the United States minimum wage laws, progressive taxation, and social security programs were all instituted, many initially by the New Deal, and today remain an integral part of modern democratic government. While such programs are also advocated by socialism, liberalism does not support the socialist goal of complete equality imposed by state control, and because it is still dedicated to the primacy of the individual, liberalism also strongly opposes communism. Current liberal goals in the United States include integration of the races, sexual equality, and the eradication of poverty.
In the twentieth century, a viewpoint or ideology associated with free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government in regulating capitalism.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Link to your source would be prudent, as well as expected/required gmcnulty. Please give proper citation for the material you use or are quoting from, if required.


seekerof

[edit on 6-6-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2003 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


[edit on 6-6-2004 by gmcnulty]



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Scofe: The ideas in that article are drivel. The author assumes liberals aren't christians. He may as well say that liberalism is the anti-christ. Then, explain how roughly 70% of the people in this nation are christian and 40 plus are registered democrats?

It seems liberalism is the new boogieman. If there is something wrong in your community blame the liberals. If kids shoot up their school its because the liberals took prayer outta school. Its not because they can purchase weapons and ammo at their friendly neighborhood -mart. Conservatives are silly with this surface crap. Real problems can't be solved because you have mass prayer. They require real action which most politicans are too busy pandering to perform.


Liberals believe that passing religious values to children is a form of child abuse.


That's just idiotic. I like to see where this information came from. Liberalism is about protecting the rights of all people. Your right to worship shouldn't infringe on someone elses. It seems the author of this article feels like he is the only one with a right to his belief system. What he wants is a theocracy not democracy. The only thing that's keeping this nation from becoming China or the Arab world is liberalism. But, it seems you wouldn't mind it much if that happened because your beliefs would be protected--damn the rest of America.



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 12:03 AM
link   
.........a kindred spirit in this...........a sea of insanity……………the loneliness abates……..

BTW

I was in the supermarket to night and came across a ‘Christian’ kiosk of the revolving type with Christian books on display………what frosted me and cause me to go ballistic was one little piece of trash entitled “The Bible Cure for Diabetes”……………Maybe I’m to sensitive and was just reacting…………whatsya think? Too over the top?



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 12:22 AM
link   
The whole liberal bashing seems to be the trend, does it not?

I am a liberal, I believe in equal rights for all regardless of race, gender, creed, sexual orientation, elderly and those that cannot speak for themselves. Taking care of the little guy because living in a society where the less fortunate have to fend for themselves with no hope for a future, will result in an unstable environment for all. Why not anyway, if we as a collective body have the resources, why not? Is that such a heartless platform to stand on?

I also support the UN as a humanitarian body, not a politically powerful body.

But then again I can't expect everyone to have seen the deep, deep poverty in the third world countries I have backpacked through. Or volunteered in the community helping Domestic Violence victims, AIDS patients, the homeless. These are people living and breathing that need a helping hand, so why not? Because they are too lazy to work? Not so. There is more to it.

It has been suggested in the origins of this thread that liberals believe in collectivism(an Emile Durkhiem philosophy) rather than personal responsibility. Well as theorized by Durkheim we are a collectiveness and interdependent on one another for our survival, we as man do not survive in solitude.

So I ask again, is liberalism so bad?

[Edited on 7-6-2004 by Narnia]



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   
How true, dear one.

And if you allow me an expression from the Christian tradition……

Many may have never taken time to reflect on how gifted we have been by the Lord; or believe that , We are in fact are “our brother's keeper”........the first teaching offered man by God..........And in the Christian tradition - the final command left us by the
Lord, - “Love one another; as I have loved you."

And to believe in… to have the faith to dare…. and that its practice ………can alone change the world. It’s the faith in the paradox and the need not to “strike the water” more then once to move the world.

AND to be a ‘fool’ for Christ.

I am off to bed so I bid you all well and good night…………



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Gmc: There is a bible cure for diabities...lol...you won't get it if you obey the law in Exodus 11. I'm willing to bet a lil pocket change that is what's in that book.



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I'll concede the bet because I ain’t about to go back and check……….Send me a self-addressed stamped envelope and I will post it back with the .57 cents now resident in my right-hand pocket hip pocket…………..



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Bravo scofe for posting that piece!
couple of points to the "rebuttals"
1 - the rich need to pay higher burden of taxes than the poor - They do the fact is the top 1% of the nation pay better than 75% of the government collected taxes. Also as the only way to BECOME rich in america is to CREATE VALUE (i.e. open a busines, invest in companies therby giving them the capital needed to grow) they are not only paying most of the taxes they are creating most of the jobs.
2- the point of the constitution and the bill of rights was to protect the rights of the individual because the founding fathers reconised that it is impossible to protect the whole if the parts are not protected.



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 07:20 AM
link   
They have run out of fingers and toes to count on by the time they reach 60.



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Like it or not the reason for the U.S.'s dominance in the world tody is due to the darwinian nature of our political/economic structure. If you think thats unfair well.......... I doubt the dodo, saber tooth tiger, or neaderthals liked evolution much either.






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join