Liberalism and Political Correctness Heralds the Destruction of America

OP's thesis uses the tactics of every demagogue ... referring to a vast phantom menace while utterly unable to give specifics as to who, what, when and where.

OP isn't talking about real people ... OP is talking about gross ideology.

Another day at the ATS rock.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Whoopie, we agree on something. The state shouldn't get to say who marries who. That's pretty much what all liberals believe too.

Absolute lie. The left believes the state should decide who can and can't get married. The left has yet to scream about allowing two men and a woman, or one man and three women from getting married. Not a peep. When the State decreed that same sex marriage is now allowed, the Left celebrated that decision; because the State decreed it was now legal. State being intimately involved is what liberals believe.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Nope. The left believes that consenting adults should have equal rights under the laws. Period. The reason why same-sex marriage has been talked about more is because there have been lawsuits over it all over the country. I'm all for polygamous marriages being legal - as long as it involves consenting adults. Never said any differently.

What the left celebrated was equal rights under the law because the left doesn't like institutional discrimination - Not against gays, or trans people or blacks or any other minority that tends to get discriminated against.

a reply to: Gryphon66

This isn't a thesis, and I would prefer not to be taken to task. However, if you ask nicely, I might just humor you.

a reply to: kaylaluv

It isn't equal rights under the law.

A single person is in a separate tax bracket as married couples. I have yet to see the left strive for true equality.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: ColaTesla
a reply to: jimmyx

so, can I freely insult you time after time, after time, in a public forum, without you getting angry about it?....

Why, Any way you want sir, I believe in free speech, and have no right not to be offended, I very rarely am, Thats the joy of not being part of the regressive left...

Try it, you might like it

there you go, insulting an entire political philosophy as being regressive in nature....oh....what a joy it must be for you

The only person that appears to continuously be insulted is you, A common trait of the regressive actually.... Oh what a joy it is to be me.....

a reply to: TheRedneck

Why can't we find unity within diversity instead of one overcoming the other? You gave some great examples of unity within diversity, we are all human, these political ideologies do not allow for such unity to be found. Just as the OP said, some think the other side are "wild animals" and "need to be dealt with". There is no unity in that message, only division and such nonsense should not be a part of the discussion.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Gryphon66

This isn't a thesis, and I would prefer not to be taken to task. However, if you ask nicely, I might just humor you.

A few pieces of free advice for you:

Look up what the word thesis means perhaps.

You've posted bloated demagoguery. If you don't like being "taken to task" for such, don't post it on an open forum.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Yes it is.

A single person making a certain salary will be under a different tax bracket than a single person making more (or less). But any single person now has the legal right (thanks to the liberal push) to marry the consenting adult of his/her choice. Any person, regardless of their sexual orientation.

A marriage contract is a binding legal contract often offering special status and benefits from a given State.

The Supreme Court (not liberals) ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that all Americans be treated fairly under the laws of marriage, to wit, that the State cannot discriminate against citizens based on sex.

I have yet to meet a liberal or leftist or Democrat (which don't all mean the same thing) that would be opposed to changing the laws in regard to polygamy for consenting adults.

Facts, not fiction.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Two definitions, one a simple statement, the other a research paper.

At least you do not want me to write an actual thesis, depending on the content and amount of research, would take a lot of time.

My bad.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: olaru12

I'm exceedingly reluctant to even get involved in this discussion but I have to say you have no problems reading between the lines and putting words in Trump's mouth. Am I seeing a little double standard here?

Don't be shy, feel welcome to chime in and be as snarky as you want. This is ATS where vitriol, hatred and the evil babies play. I think you know what I mean, eh? You should fit right in!!

Double standard....who me?

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Gryphon66

Two definitions, one a simple statement, the other a research paper.

At least you do not want me to write an actual thesis, depending on the content and amount of research, would take a lot of time.

My bad.

Here are some alternatives to the word thesis that aptly describe your OP, since you seem to be having so much trouble with one word:

"diatribe, polemic, harangue, tirade, invective, jeremiad (personal favorite), rash of crap, load of horsepucks, nonsensical rubbish, irrational ranting, and just plain old garbage."

Enjoy.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Again, the Supreme Court decreed what is allowed, they did not remove the government from controlling who and who cannot be married. It is still the requirement to get a marriage license, through the state; and in any given generation can change at the whim of who is in power. That is not progress, because sooner or later, the truly repressive forces of the left will gain absolute control.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Then you were not referring to the definition of thesis, maybe you should look it up.



I should add this, to clear things up for you:

This is not a thesis, in either sense: All statements written on internet, especially internet forums, are legally opinion. Everything I have said is true, it is up to you to verify or not, everything you have stated is merely your opinion, in the legal sense (and not a very good one at that).

a reply to: GodEmperor

Sorry OP, I couldn't get past the first line.

We are in the most trying times in American history, probably the most dangerous times in the entire history of human civilization.

You my friend have absolutely no sense of history. Your worldview is the embodiment of right-wing scaremongering. As a society, we have the most liberty ever:

- Nobody in slavery or bonded servitude
- No segregation, legally enforced housing discrimination, etc
- Women and non-whites have Consitutional rights to vote
- People can marry who they want

Let me guess. None of those things apply to YOU right? Of course they don't which is what allows you to be a melodramatic child whining on the Internet from the comfort of his home about all his imagined #firstworldproblems.

How about all of our First Amendment rights then?

When was the last time somebody got locked up for giving a political speech? Criticizing the government in a newspaper? Handing out political literature? Sending erotic images through the mail? (or how about personal correspondence referencing sex — yeah that used to be illegal)

You dishonor every person who has ever struggled for liberty that has come before you with your melodramatic whining born of right-wing scaremongering identity politics. We have a ways to go yet and the struggle isn't over. We have new threats like mass surveillance, mass incarceration and warrantless searches.

The problem is you are incapable of being a part of that struggle because you're so programmed to fear your peers that you'll welcome it in the name of "feeling safe" because you are so utterly and inexcusably ignorant of history that you actually believe we are living in "probably the most dangerous times in the entire history of human civilization."

Ugh.

a reply to: olaru12

Lord have mercy at the venom. Sure glad you appreciate diversity and civil interaction. I'd hate to hear what comes out of your mouth if you didn't.

PS: That's why I'm staying out of this one.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Soon the left will promote mandatory abortions, having income requirements to have children, to only allow for children who do not have genetic disorders, etc. A policy born out of racism (liberal thought), like abortion, will always return to its' roots.

That's nothing more than conspiratorial bull#.

Just more made-up fear mongering for the ignorant to lap-up.

You can't provide any proof or substance for what you claim. You're just wasting our time.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well, I will address one point.

There is still slavery in America. Your opinion is wrong, not surprising you have not done your homework.

According to the FBI, there are currently an estimated 293,000 American children at risk of being exploited and trafficked for sex. Forty percent of all human trafficking cases opened for investigation between January 2008 and June 2010 were for the sexual trafficking of a child. And while the term trafficking may conjure images of desperate illegal immigrants being forced into prostitution by human smugglers, 83 percent of victims in confirmed sex trafficking cases in this country were American citizens.

Think Progress

a reply to: GodEmperor

There is no requirement to get a marriage license. Lots of people spend their whole lives together without getting one. The important recent change is that any two consenting adults who want a marriage license can get one, regardless of their sexual orientation. And yes, that IS progress, because it stopped the truly repressive forces of the religious right.