Obama and Liberals are a Threat

page: 12
23
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Violetshy
 





I grew up around conservatives, and was raised in a church. I am now what most would consider a liberal, but I'm not an atheist.


I like the balance this brings your character. I've been in both extremes and I don't handle it as gracefully as yourself.




posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp

It is not wise to use such a broad stroked brush. Not all culture is bad. Some is good, some, maybe at this point in history we can even say most is not good.

The object is to identify that which is not good, and change it. Some times that takes a long time.


This is true.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp
 




I have yet to see your definition of "feminism"?




Noun
The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.


Google: Feminism Definition

I would agree with this definition.

I just think it gets a bit more complicated because in general, the Yin and Yang are on completely different wavelengths. Some feminists tend to go for making Yin dominant, or eliminating Yang altogether as part of their agenda.
edit on 28-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp

Originally posted by Skyfloating
We need to stop calling them "liberals". Im a very liberal person...."live and let live", "tolerate a great variety of viewpoints", "love diversity of cultures". And as a liberal and free-thinking person I cant possibly support the fierce totalitarian/communistoid/eco-fascist/religion-hating/success-hating monsters calling themselves "liberals" these days.

These certain types of liberals arent "liberal" about anything. They want to have everything controlled, regulated, "made equal", enforced, collectivized. They run around as PC-thought-police and ostracize anyone who disagrees with them.

We need to stop calling them "liberals". True liberals are people who are easy-going, good-willed and tolerant (not only of minorities, but of anyone).
edit on 23-1-2013 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)


You are correct. Classical liberalism in the tradition of Jefferson, John Lock, Adam Smith, James Madison holds up the God given rights of the individual, Natural Law, and that the role of government is to protect the liberty of "We the People" not to lord over us in a Big Brother totalitarian state.

What are called "liberals" today have more in common with the old style Soviets than Jefferson, Madison, Lock and Adam Smith.


This is true, even though they do not wish to admit it - their ridiculous intolerance of other viewpoints is what makes me not be able to stand their agenda at the moment.

I'm sure that their intolerance of other viewpoints and bullheadedness will end up going against them at some point, there have been various points in my life where I have attempted to integrate into the Liberal crowd and been flamed by them for saying something or other.

I'm sure there are other people out there who have had similar experiences.
edit on 28-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard
 





Second rule is dont go to the Mall.


What happens if you go to the Mall? Yeah, diverse opinions are great.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp

Originally posted by Skyfloating
We need to stop calling them "liberals". Im a very liberal person...."live and let live", "tolerate a great variety of viewpoints", "love diversity of cultures". And as a liberal and free-thinking person I cant possibly support the fierce totalitarian/communistoid/eco-fascist/religion-hating/success-hating monsters calling themselves "liberals" these days.

These certain types of liberals arent "liberal" about anything. They want to have everything controlled, regulated, "made equal", enforced, collectivized. They run around as PC-thought-police and ostracize anyone who disagrees with them.

We need to stop calling them "liberals". True liberals are people who are easy-going, good-willed and tolerant (not only of minorities, but of anyone).
edit on 23-1-2013 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)


You are correct. Classical liberalism in the tradition of Jefferson, John Lock, Adam Smith, James Madison holds up the God given rights of the individual, Natural Law, and that the role of government is to protect the liberty of "We the People" not to lord over us in a Big Brother totalitarian state.

What are called "liberals" today have more in common with the old style Soviets than Jefferson, Madison, Lock and Adam Smith.


This is true, even though they do not wish to admit it - their ridiculous intolerance of other viewpoints is what makes me not be able to stand their agenda at the moment.

I'm sure that their intolerance of other viewpoints and bullheadedness will end up going against them at some point, there have been various points in my life where I have attempted to integrate into the Liberal crowd and been flamed by them for saying something or other.

I'm sure there are other people out there who have had similar experiences.
edit on 28-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)


Here is the mindset of the Marxists.

All opposition has to be eliminated, by whatever means necessary.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp
 




I have yet to see your definition of "feminism"?




Noun
The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.


Google: Feminism Definition

I would agree with this definition.

I just think it gets a bit more complicated because in general, the Yin and Yang are on completely different wavelengths. Some feminists tend to go for making Yin dominant, or eliminating Yang altogether as part of their agenda.
edit on 28-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)


Within that definition, is the equal ability to work hard to rise to whatever level can be reached on their own merits, as well as the equal ability to fail as well.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp
 


Well if we are talking about the simple view of feminism, I agree with that, women aren't slaves - and even if they are housewives in some cases, they should have a choice in the matter.

There are more complicated feminist principles, however.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by darkbake
 


Pick your republican, and conservatives are also a threat.


This is absolutely true. And in fact, I think "liberals" and "conservatives" deliberately play off of one another to ram the big government agenda through. When conservatives are in power, they work on things liberal voters wouldn't go for and when liberals are in charge, they work on things conservative voters wouldn't go for. The big government agenda has elements from both sides.

But it is ultimately safer to have conservatives in charge because most people in this country are liberal and they will naturally oppose conservatives just because they're conservatives. Bush did a lot of damage but he didn't have as easy of a time doing it as Obama has. Because Obama's fan club is huge. Liberals still trust him.
edit on 8-6-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
23
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join