NationStates Jolt Archive

I watch the news every day, and I see the latest stupidity of the Left in America, and political correctness runs rampent every day. Granted, there was a time when it was good to be liberal, but that was mid to late 18th centuary during the Guilded Age in America. However, it is destroying our national identity. Liberals want to allow illegales to have the same rights as natural born Americans, and they outlaw as much religion as they can. They say they support freedom of speech, but when someone who they disagree with speaks they silence them by calling them racist, sxist, ageist, etc., or they throw pie at them as they did to Ann Coulter during one of her speeches. Am I the only one on these forums who think liberalism has finished its usefulness in the world and is destroying America, and thus needs to be discarded before it completly destroys us? And what do you think should take its place if you do?

*edit* ok since people were missunderstanding something which I wrote, I rewrote some of it.

No, you're wrong.

Nice to see kids advocating mass murder. :rolleyes:

Nope. While there are many annoying things about the stereotype of liberalism, such as political correctness, it's much better than wanting to restrict people's rights.
US liberalism doesn't go far enough, though.

Oh, and what do you mean, "destroy it"? You want to kill the Democrats?
I do hope you're joking.

Yes, now run for the hills or Cuba!

Nice to see kids advocating mass . :rolleyes:

And just how am I doing that? I am saying the ideology should be discarded, I'm not asking for people to die.

I watch the news every day, and I see the latest stupidity of the Left in America, and political correctness runs rampent every day. Granted, there was a time when it was good to be liberal, but that was mid to late 18th centuary during the Guilded Age in America. However, it is destroying our national identity. Liberals want to allow illegales to have the same rights as natural born Americans, and they outlaw as much religion as they can. They say they support freedom of speech, but when someone who they disagree with speaks they silence them by calling them racist, sxist, ageist, etc., or they throw pie at them as they did to Ann Coulter during one of her speeches. Am I the only one on these forums who think liberalism has finished its usefulness in the world and is destroying America, and thus needs to be destroyed before it completly destroys us?

What do you propose should take it's place?

What do you propose should take it's place?
He's a fascist.
And no, I'm not trying to attack him by saying that, he actually is a fascist. He says so himself.

I think both sides are destroying America. Both sides are so damned self serving that they ignore what the average person wants.

And just how am I doing that? I am saying the ideology should be discarded, I'm not asking for people to die.
"Destroy" doesn't mean the same as discarded. And defending someone who has advocated said mass murder isn't helping your case at all.

kid, you should get yourself a tv series. "tales of a pre-teen fascist". it could be on bravo or something.

*snip*
Political correctness runs rampant? With people like Fred Phelps still get airtime? And what exactly is your national identity? Have you really had enough time to develop 'THE IDENTITY' that will last you down to the end of your days? Is it developed, done, no changes needed?

Illegals. Yes...those subhumans who come to your country without permission. Kind of like your original settlers.

Outlawing religion. When it was never a part of your government in the first place? When people have the right to follow whatever creed they wish? When they are not jailed, beaten, or exiled for their religion?

Pie throwing at Ann was bad...but spitting in Jane Fonda's face was 'justice'?

I'm sorry...I still don't see how 'liberalism' is 'destroying' the USA. It's not a flesh-eating disease, as far as I know *checks*...

kid, you should get yourself a tv series. "tales of a pre-teen fascist". it could be on bravo or something.

And, fortunately, nobody would watch.

I watch the news every day, and I see the latest stupidity of the Left in America, and political correctness runs rampent every day. Granted, there was a time when it was good to be liberal, but that was mid to late 18th centuary during the Guilded Age in America. However, it is destroying our national identity. Liberals want to allow illegales to have the same rights as natural born Americans, and they outlaw as much religion as they can. They say they support freedom of speech, but when someone who they disagree with speaks they silence them by calling them racist, sxist, ageist, etc., or they throw pie at them as they did to Ann Coulter during one of her speeches. Am I the only one on these forums who think liberalism has finished its usefulness in the world and is destroying America, and thus needs to be destroyed before it completly destroys us?
Oh wow. You want to defend the Gilded age as a paradise? In my mind, excluding wars, it was one of, if not the, worst portion of American history. If you really want to have a debate on this, give me your best shot. There's no defense of the policies of that period.

That being said, the rest of the post is also wrong. And Ann Coulter is an idiot. She deserves to get the pie in the face.
Quotes:"We should kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
"School desegregation led to students knifing each other in the hallways in between acts of sodomy."

And I don't feel the need to dignify much of this with a response. Liberal democratic capitalism is the only system proven to be successful. It continues to be so.

So, you couldn't provide even one non-retarded poll option? Had to go with the all-dumbass poll, eh?

Oh wow. You want to defend the Gilded age as a paradise? In my mind, excluding wars, it was one of, if not the, worst portion of American history. If you really want to have a debate on this, give me your best shot. There's no defense of the policies of that period.


if you actually read what i wrote i said liberalis was GOOD during the Gilded Age because the Gilded Age was horrible. that much i agree with you upon.

and to everyone else, leave my ideas out of this, i am asking for your opinions not for you to turn this into a flamefest about my politics.

So, you couldn't provide even one non-retarded poll option? Had to go with the all-dumbass poll, eh?

When I read the poll for some reason I hear the words being spoken by Arnold Swartzenneger.

That poll should have another option; other.

Because there are those of us that don't like the other side but don't think it should be wiped from the planet.

I'm sorry...I still don't see how 'liberalism' is 'destroying' the USA. It's not a flesh-eating disease, as far as I know *checks*...

*hiss* "Must...crush...capitalism...and religion...in a politically correct way...without the use of firearms..." *begins drooling and muttering incoherently* *bites random passer by and spreads the disease*

I think both sides are destroying America. Both sides are so damned self serving that they ignore what the average person wants.

I'm in agreement there.

if you actually read what i wrote i said liberalis was GOOD during the Gilded Age because the Gilded Age was horrible. that much i agree with you upon.

and to everyone else, leave my ideas out of this, i am asking for your opinions not for you to turn this into a flamefest about my politics.
Liberalism meant something different back then. The modern liberal movement was a direct result of Franklin Roosevelt, who in turn came from the Progressive movement which started as a reaction to the excesses of the Gilded age and the failure of anyone to do anything about it. So your terminology confused me.

When I read the poll for some reason I hear the words being spoken by Arnold Swartzenneger.

LOL! I can actually picture that.

LOL! I can actually picture that.

Hahaha, same here. Weird.

Destroying America eh?
Oh well, it's been nice arguing with you all.

Bye.

:p

And, fortunately, nobody would watch.

i don't know, it might become sort of a cult classic.

i don't know, it might become sort of a cult classic.

Like Plan 9 From Outerspace, or Caddyshack?

Like Plan 9 From Outerspace, or Caddyshack?
I would say more like Manos: Hands of Fate. That is, no one, not even masochists, would watch it.

No, it's actually rampant populism which is destroying America. Liberals and conservatives alike have embrassed it lately, while straying away from personal responsibility.

I would say more like Manos: Hands of Fate. That is, no one, not even masochists, would watch it.


Not Eegah! ?

Not Eegah! ?

Glen or Glenda, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians?

This thread, originating from a facist, holds no credibility in my eyes. And as a note I'm libertarian (classic liberal)

I would say more like Manos: Hands of Fate. That is, no one, not even masochists, would watch it.

Haha, that fits nicely.

Yes liberalism is destroying america because the only democrat with enough backbone to try and change the meaning of the word is tryin to be censored by fellow party members wusses

Pie throwing at Ann was bad...but spitting in Jane Fonda's face was 'justice'? NO, bringing her up on charges of treason would be justice. However its to late for that.

I'm sorry...I still don't see how 'liberalism' is 'destroying' the USA. It's not a flesh-eating disease, as far as I know *checks*...

Simple... we are born liberal... when the children make the rules for the family, the family is destroyed.

Conservitivism is learning to cohabitate with others.

Relieved to see that the OP is in the minority here. I think the rabid proclamations and hyperbole of the extreme right tend to make them seem like something more than the lunatic fringe that they have always been, and hopefully will always be.

Glen or Glenda, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians?

Overdrawn at the Memory Bank?

Liberalism meant something different back then. The modern liberal movement was a direct result of Franklin Roosevelt, who in turn came from the Progressive movement which started as a reaction to the excesses of the Gilded age and the failure of anyone to do anything about it. So your terminology confused me.
That lie is 1000's of years old... which is why Liberalism always cannibelizes countries.

Always ... it was something different... we are different now... Generation after generation have said the same thing... we can get it right this time... we are different. Liberal... like conservitive is a pattern of behavior... it does not change... people may change.. but the pattern of behavior is the same.

FYI... Liberals killed a 150 million last century trying to get Socialism/Communism right... how many this Century?

FYI... Liberals killed a 150 million last century trying to get Socialism/Communism right... how many this Century? If Liberal = Stalin/Mao, then conservative = Hitler/Mussolini. Are you trying to say that the great dictators were liberal?

If Liberal = Stalin/Mao, then conservative = /Mussolini. Are you trying to say that the great dictators were liberal?

yea that is what hes trying to say, because stalin/mao were communist and communism is LIBERAL.

and "the great dictators"??????? and people bash me for my views....

FYI... Liberals killed a 150 million last century trying to get Socialism/Communism right... how many this Century?

alas, poor americans, political terms confuse them.

alas, poor americans, political terms confuse them.

and how is that?

FYI... Liberals killed a 150 million last century trying to get Socialism/Communism right... how many this Century?

Communism is an economic system. If I'm not mistaken, the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are more commonly used to refer to people's stance on social issues.

and how is that?
Liberal =/= Left

They aren't even remotely similar.

Liberal deals with social issues, Left deals with economic issues.

The author of this thread says that liberals silence anyone that agrees with them yet the right-wing is constantly telling people not to disagree with Bush and saying they hate America because they believe differently. Also Bill O'Reilly's most famous saying is "SHUT UP!". So who's silencing who now?

FYI... Liberals killed a 150 million last century trying to get Socialism/Communism right... how many this Century?
You are equating liberalism to communism?

You've just wrecked your credibility. That's like equating conservatives to the Nazi party.


As for the rest of your post, I have heard a very different version of history than you have.
Here's what I have heard:
Originally, 'liberalism' referred to something more like what we call libertarianism now in the US. They were free-market capitalists that also believed in individual liberties. You know, Smith and Locke and such. Then, what we now know as liberals(in the US) popped up in the US and took the term 'liberal' and applied it to themselves, meaning what it now does. Keynes was one of that group, I believe. It was literally two different groups of people, with different views on society and the individual. Not anything like one group claiming it is different than it once was.

My story is probably patchy, and may even be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that the modern use of liberal sprang from a different group.

I watch the news every day, and I see the latest stupidity of the Left in America, and political correctness runs rampent every day. Granted, there was a time when it was good to be liberal, but that was mid to late 18th centuary during the Guilded Age in America. However, it is destroying our national identity. Liberals want to allow illegales to have the same rights as natural born Americans, and they outlaw as much religion as they can. They say they support freedom of speech, but when someone who they disagree with speaks they silence them by calling them racist, sxist, ageist, etc., or they throw pie at them as they did to Ann Coulter during one of her speeches. Am I the only one on these forums who think liberalism has finished its usefulness in the world and is destroying America, and thus needs to be discarded before it completly destroys us? And what do you think should take its place if you do?

*edit* ok since people were missunderstanding something which I wrote, I rewrote some of it.


I think you're over-reacting. It takes more than a period of "Active-Stupid" policies to destroy a nation. It takes Apathy and the growth of moral cowardice. those can grow even in a Left-absent environment.

Alright, that's it.

*streaks thread*

America's problem is the same problem all nations have: authoritarianism.

and how is that?

Because this is (in general) the scale -

Communalism-Stalinism-Leninism-Socialism-Democratic Socialism-Liberalism/Progressivism-Centreleft-Center-Centerright-Conservatism-Ubercapitalism/Moralism-Theocracy-Fascism-National Socialism

Saying that Stalinism(the USSR style communism) is the same as anything left of center is so incredibly wrong, it's scary.

yea that is what hes trying to say, because stalin/mao were communist and communism is LIBERAL.
No, because 'liberal' refers to a certain set of views. 'Liberal' does not mean 'left-wing'.
If you are talking about the American use of 'liberal', these are people that believe that government intervention in the economy is possible without becoming a socialist planned economy. They believe in many civil rights, but sometimes in restricting individual rights for what is supposedly the benefit of society.

They are not communist. They do believe in capitalism.

If you are talking about classic liberals, these people aren't even left-wing. They're capitalists that believe the state should intervene as little as possible.


Generally, in both senses, 'liberal' is taken to mean something a bit like 'one who believes in liberty', but different groups with different views now use the term.

Ny no definition that I have ever heard are the authoritarian communist dictators 'liberal'.

and how is that?

because liberalism is not stalinism is not communism is not socialism

FYI... Liberals killed a 150 million last century trying to get Socialism/Communism right... how many this Century?
What liberals advocate communism? They're not the same, in fact they're far from each other.

because stalin/mao were communist and communism is LIBERAL.
You're one of those right-wingers who calls everyone who disagrees with him "communist", aren't you?

You're one of those right-wingers who calls everyone who disagrees with him "communist", aren't you?

actually no im not, i dont call everyone who disagrees with me a communist. actually i only personally know one communist, one super libertairan, one somewhat libertarian, one person who wants to go back to the guilded age, one black kid who calls everyone racist even if you do nothing more then ask him the time of day (no, im not kidding, ive known him for 6 years unfortunatly). i call people what they are depending on what they say they are or sound to be.

Its' the same old story, Liberalism vs Conservatism, some battles the cons wins, some the libs. Canada for example turning into a liberal paradise,U.S. is leaning toward Conservatism and i think this one reason we are having problems with our neighbours to the south. The leaning towards de-criminalisation of marijuana,gay marriage among others i think has Americans starting to see us in a different and not altogether favorable light

Its' the same old story, Liberalism vs Conservatism, some battles the cons wins, some the libs. Canada for example turning into a liberal paradise,U.S. is leaning toward Conservatism and i think this one reason we are having problems with our neighbours to the south. The leaning towards de-criminalisation of marijuana,gay marriage among others i think has Americans starting to see us in a different and not altogether favorable light

I think both sides are destroying America. Both sides are so damned self serving that they ignore what the average person wants.

Two Words my friend: Libertarian Party

i call people what they are depending on what they say they are or sound to be.
So, by some stretch, it sounds to you like liberals are advocating communism?

actually no im not, i dont call everyone who disagrees with me a communist. actually i only personally know one communist, one super libertairan, one somewhat libertarian, one person who wants to go back to the guilded age, one black kid who calls everyone racist even if you do nothing more then ask him the time of day (no, im not kidding, ive known him for 6 years unfortunatly). i call people what they are depending on what they say they are or sound to be.

Would you care to enlighten us on what Communism is? I'm curious, because from what you've said, you don't even know the least bit about it.

As it's been said before:

Calling Liberals Communists is like calling Conservative Nazis.

So, by Calling Liberals commies, you are basically calling yourself a Nazi.

Welcome to your logic, however circular and frankly extremely flawed it may be.

lol ok i actually know NAS Rebels personally ....... hes one of those people who thinks actual communism is what we saw throughout the 20th century, when, in fact, true communism has yet to exist on a large scale.

What I like to think, which is what i learned from a course in European history, is that the de facto communism and fascism that have existed were basically one in the same, because you can say that they were so extreme and corrupted that they actually met each other on the circular political spectrum.

anyway, i also think im the super libertarian guy he mentioned before, and i'm proud to be so ...... the LP combines all the good of the Democratic and Republican parties, while leaving out all the bad stuff

My ideal government/philosophy comes down to five words (to the chagrin of guys like NAS Rebels): Free Minds and Free Markets

If Liberal = Stalin/Mao, then conservative = Hitler/Mussolini. Are you trying to say that the great dictators were liberal?

I am saying the all dictators meet this pattern of behavior.

wanting to be viewed as a giver. (the need to give out ways the need)
lacking moral restraint
licentious
anti-authoritarian (the only authority the dictator listens to is their own... and that can change when they want it to.)
loose translation ( strange translation of being a giver and knowing whats best for the people)
not bound by traditional forms ( I don't recall there being a national kill all our people day)

No dictator is this

tending to maintine existing views...(that is why they must dictate.. because the views do not currently exist)
marked by moderation (to dictate can not be done in moderation)
Caution (nothing cautous about dicators.. radical change is radical)
traditional norms( nothing tratitional about killing millions)

Like it or not... both liberal and conservitive is a pattern of behavior.. try using a dictionary... This patter of behavior has existed as long as man has.

Now, liberals don't like their spots... so they keep trying to change the... you can't... you can only accept the truth and stop supporting making law follow this pattern of behavior... As defined...if you are not bound by law..licentious... how can you make law? Hence the delima... its like allowing children to make rules for the family... and watch it be destroyed.

Liberals are loved ONLY when they don't make law... only then can they be free and cherrished... just as children.

One other thing... resitance is not absolute... absolute is a liberal difinition of resitance... in other words... a very loose translation.

It is the enforced conservatism in America that prevents democracy. There is no party that really has liberal views in terms of major change - the only people that can be President in America are rich and corrupt. I cant find a fully appropriate answer to the poll, i chose the 4th one as its closest. You cant destroy conservatism, nor does liberalism need to be controlled - a proper democracy should be installed in America, especially if they think they have the right to invade countries to impose it!

Its' the same old story, Liberalism vs Conservatism, some battles the cons wins, some the libs. Canada for example turning into a liberal paradise,U.S. is leaning toward Conservatism and i think this one reason we are having problems with our neighbours to the south. The leaning towards de-criminalisation of marijuana,gay marriage among others i think has Americans starting to see us in a different and not altogether favorable light

Look what being a liberal paradise has got us. The government stealing our tax dollars to fund the LIBERAL party. :gundge:

Bush hasn't done that.

Here is a fact... this pattern of behavior is what destroys nations. This pattern of behavior exists in people. This pattern of behavior is how all children are born.

2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

In English its called liberal and adjective. Now in English... Liberalism is based on the adjective... though Liberalism has good goals... if it lacks moral restraint and is not bound by law and uses loose translations of law... then its Anarchy.

Conservitive on the other hand is quite basic and has rules.

a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners

Now. to save a forest you conserve it... to waste a forest you use it liberally. To eat only what you need is to eat conservitively... to eat more than you need and to waste food is to take liberal portions. These are facts and a pattern of behavior.

Tradition can never be dictated...it comes from free will only... thus to support traditional values is to support free will. To support dicated values is a loose translation of traditional... thus Liberal.

Again... this pattern of behavior exists in man... and its the abuse of lies.. or loose translations that are the problems... now call this behavior what you wish... but to say its conservitive... is to use the term LOOSLY thus liberal.

So, where your behavior lays... I am not judging... but if you want to make a difference at least stop believing the the elitist tell you and open up your own dictionary.

I watch the news every day, and I see the latest stupidity of the Left in America, and political correctness runs rampent every day. Granted, there was a time when it was good to be liberal, but that was mid to late 18th centuary during the Guilded Age in America. However, it is destroying our national identity. Liberals want to allow illegales to have the same rights as natural born Americans, and they outlaw as much religion as they can. They say they support freedom of speech, but when someone who they disagree with speaks they silence them by calling them racist, sxist, ageist, etc., or they throw pie at them as they did to Ann Coulter during one of her speeches. Am I the only one on these forums who think liberalism has finished its usefulness in the world and is destroying America, and thus needs to be discarded before it completly destroys us? And what do you think should take its place if you do?

*edit* ok since people were missunderstanding something which I wrote, I rewrote some of it.
It is obvious to see that you are anti-liberal, given the biased choices in your poll. Is that a pro conservative trait (to post biased polls that is)?

I am saying the all dictators meet this pattern of behavior.

wanting to be viewed as a giver. (the need to give out ways the need)
lacking moral restraint
licentious
anti-authoritarian (the only authority the dictator listens to is their own... and that can change when they want it to.)
loose translation ( strange translation of being a giver and knowing whats best for the people)
not bound by traditional forms ( I don't recall there being a national kill all our people day)
'Liberal' has nothing to do with lacking moral restraint, the 'liberal' we are talking about has nothing to do with being licentious, unless you are switching to using the archaic term 'liberal' meaning 'licentious or lacking moral restraint'. The modern word 'liberal' refers to a set of political beliefs, and I believe that is what we are referring to. Generally, dictators do not want to give people more personal freedom(US liberal definition) or economic freedom(classic liberals), at least never that I have seen.

Perhaps you could give us your definition of 'liberal'?
Aha, I see you've done that.

Also, I would certainly not call wanting oneself to be in power and have control 'anti-authoritarian' at all. Anti-authoritarianism is about being against that power.

Its' the same old story, Liberalism vs Conservatism, some battles the cons wins, some the libs. Canada for example turning into a liberal paradise,U.S. is leaning toward Conservatism and i think this one reason we are having problems with our neighbours to the south. The leaning towards de-criminalisation of marijuana,gay marriage among others i think has Americans starting to see us in a different and not altogether favorable light

Yes, and the fact that Canada is going to have a new election because of the crimes the Liberal Party has committed.. How long before Martin is gone?

It is obvious to see that you are anti-liberal, given the biased choices in your poll. Is that a pro conservative trait (to post biased polls that is)?

I've seen liberal biased polls. Don't hang the conservative unless you go through the liberals to.


Martin won't be going in awhile, he's too crooked to get removed from power so easily

Here is a fact... this pattern of behavior is what destroys nations. This pattern of behavior exists in people. This pattern of behavior is how all children are born.



In English its called liberal and adjective. Now in English... Liberalism is based on the adjective... though Liberalism has good goals... if it lacks moral restraint and is not bound by law and uses loose translations of law... then its Anarchy.

Conservitive on the other hand is quite basic and has rules.



Now. to save a forest you conserve it... to waste a forest you use it liberally. To eat only what you need is to eat conservitively... to eat more than you need and to waste food is to take liberal portions. These are facts and a pattern of behavior.

Tradition can never be dictated...it comes from free will only... thus to support traditional values is to support free will. To support dicated values is a loose translation of traditional... thus Liberal.

Again... this pattern of behavior exists in man... and its the abuse of lies.. or loose translations that are the problems... now call this behavior what you wish... but to say its conservitive... is to use the term LOOSLY thus liberal.

So, where your behavior lays... I am not judging... but if you want to make a difference at least stop believing the the elitist tell you and open up your own dictionary.
You have left out definition number 6, which is the definition we are all referring to.
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

We are not referring to any of the other definitions of the word 'liberal', we are talking about the political viewpoint. I am not sure whether you left out definition 6 on purpose or not, but I suspect it is because you wanted to try to twist the dictionary's words to suit you.

Well, nice try, but it didn't work.

'Liberal' has nothing to do with lacking moral restraint, the 'liberal' we are talking about has nothing to do with being licentious, unless you are switching to using the archaic term 'liberal' meaning 'licentious or lacking moral restraint'. The modern word 'liberal' refers to a set of political beliefs, and I believe that is what we are referring to. Generally, dictators do not want to give people more personal freedom(US liberal definition) or economic freedom(classic liberals), at least never that I have seen.

Perhaps you could give us your definition of 'liberal'? I just quoted it out of the dictionary... and you ask me to give it to you again? Liberal refers to the set of political belifs... thats a noun.... unfortunetly that noun rests upon the adjective to discribe it... the rules are set forth... the fact that you want to change the meaning does not change the fact that people perfectly fit that behavior as so happens to be listed in the dictionary.

Do you deny that people do indeed fit that pattern? Do you deny that Hitler fits that pattern as I stated?



Also, I would certainly not call wanting oneself to be in power and have control 'anti-authoritarian' at all. Anti-authoritarianism is about being against that power. Yes, and the only way to insure you can be against power... is to control all the power yourself. Sorry thats so hard for you to grasp... but then thats why ine the end Liberals always support dictators. Liberals are a great base for a young up starting want to be dictator. They never seek out conservitives for power.

I watch the news every day, and I see the latest stupidity of the Left in America, and political correctness runs rampent every day. Granted, there was a time when it was good to be liberal, but that was mid to late 18th centuary during the Guilded Age in America. However, it is destroying our national identity. Liberals want to allow illegales to have the same rights as natural born Americans, and they outlaw as much religion as they can. They say they support freedom of speech, but when someone who they disagree with speaks they silence them by calling them racist, sxist, ageist, etc., or they throw pie at them as they did to Ann Coulter during one of her speeches. Am I the only one on these forums who think liberalism has finished its usefulness in the world and is destroying America, and thus needs to be discarded before it completly destroys us? And what do you think should take its place if you do?

*edit* ok since people were missunderstanding something which I wrote, I rewrote some of it.

Actually I believe that liberalism has a place in our country, however, what you see leading the democratic party now are not liberals. These people are Socialists and Marxists. (See Progressive Caucus) You will find 54 current members of the house are actually members of this outfit which until found out, their website was hosted by the Democratic Socialists. They even share the communist fist & Rose logo. Their goal is to destroy this country and re-make it in their own image. This is what needs to be wiped out, not truely liberal democrats. Unfortunately the leadership of the party is now totally under their control and it will take true democrats to get it back. Not very likely to happen.

The government stealing our tax dollars to fund the LIBERAL party. :gundge:

Bush hasn't done that.
Actually, his admin has used taxpayer money to pay journalists to write pro-admin propaganda, and tell me have you ever heard of Jeff Gannon?

Glen or Glenda, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians?

I saw the first five minutes of Glen or Glenda before turning off the VCR. To this day I regret the precious time I will never have again.

You have left out definition number 6, which is the definition we are all referring to.


We are not referring to any of the other definitions of the word 'liberal', we are talking about the political viewpoint. I am not sure whether you left out definition 6 on purpose or not, but I suspect it is because you wanted to try to twist the dictionary's words to suit you.

Well, nice try, but it didn't work.

Yes, number 6 is the noun. its liberalism.. but then ask what liberalism is... and it refers you back to liberal. in the end... you must face the truth... the values do follow the book as written. Its a word that describes a pattern of behavior... upon that pattern is built an illusion of a grand system... but then look up conservitivism... it wants the same outcome as liberalism... except they do so by having rules. Liberals think Anarchy is the way to freedom.

Liberalism is a nice house built on an active volcano, no way around it.

I just quoted it out of the dictionary... and you ask me to give it to you again? Liberal refers to the set of political belifs... thats a noun.... unfortunetly that noun rests upon the adjective to discribe it... the rules are set forth... the fact that you want to change the meaning does not change the fact that people perfectly fit that behavior as so happens to be listed in the dictionary.
I posted that while you were typing this. Read my response.
Do you deny that people do indeed fit that pattern? Do you deny that Hitler fits that pattern as I stated?
Hitler fits those bits of the pattern which aren't wrong, but the liberals do not.
Yes, and the only way to insure you can be against power... is to control all the power yourself. Sorry thats so hard for you to grasp... but then thats why ine the end Liberals always support dictators. Liberals are a great base for a young up starting want to be dictator. They never seek out conservitives for power.
I could be patronizing too if you'd like, but I prefer to leave personal attacks out of my arguments.

Someone who is truly against power would be against themselves holding it. If one doesn't believe that any group should wield power over another, then it is hypocrisy to take power yourself. Once one takes power, one is not working with anti-authoritarian ideals any longer.

And I'd sure like you to explain what you mean by liberals being a great base for wannabe dictators. Oh, and while you're at it, post some examples of liberals supporting dictators.

Yes, and the only way to insure you can be against power... is to control all the power yourself. Sorry thats so hard for you to grasp.
Actually many self-professed "anti-authoritarians" advocate no government at all. Then there are "anti-authoritarians" like the US Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/) who want power so they can use it to reduce authoritarianism.

but then thats why ine the end Liberals always support dictators. Liberals are a great base for a young up starting want to be dictator. They never seek out conservitives for power.
Just like Pinochet, right?

You've got to understand that in places where dictatorships have arisen, such as 1930s Germany, the main political groups were not necessarily "liberal" or "conservative". You're trying to apply the American political model to the whole world, and it does not work like that.

Liverbreath']Actually I believe that liberalism has a place in our country, however, what you see leading the democratic party now are not liberals. These people are Socialists and Marxists. (See Progressive Caucus) You will find 54 current members of the house are actually members of this outfit which until found out, their website was hosted by the Democratic Socialists. They even share the communist fist & Rose logo. Their goal is to destroy this country and re-make it in their own image. This is what needs to be wiped out, not truely liberal democrats. Unfortunately the leadership of the party is now totally under their control and it will take true democrats to get it back. Not very likely to happen.
If the Democrats have been taken over by socialists, have they been pushing any socialist bills?
Anything about getting rid of capitalism, anything about social ownership of the means of production?
Until then, I can't very well believe that said democratic socialists are using the Democrat party to further socialism.

Republicans and Democrats are the same things. Both basicly liberals, just with a few diffrent agendas. Also, must we name call people for what they bealive in. Thought most Liberals preach everyone should be equal. :rolleyes:

Liverbreath']Actually I believe that liberalism has a place in our country, however, what you see leading the democratic party now are not liberals. These people are Socialists and Marxists. (See Progressive Caucus) You will find 54 current members of the house are actually members of this outfit which until found out, their website was hosted by the Democratic Socialists. They even share the communist fist & Rose logo. Their goal is to destroy this country and re-make it in their own image. This is what needs to be wiped out, not truely liberal democrats. Unfortunately the leadership of the party is now totally under their control and it will take true democrats to get it back. Not very likely to happen.

Yes then NO.

Yes Liberalism has a place in our country.. I know, I was one.. but know they want to make law... and thats a problem. Liberals are like children... you don't let your children make law... when you work... when you eat.. what you eat... what you spend the money on... if you did... the family would be destroyed... the way we love our children is by making laws to protect them... by the parent being conservitive... when the parent is liberal... they steal their childs life. They rob them of their future.

The same holds true for Nations and Laws... keep the laws conservitive... not strict... thats a loose translation of conservitive... or Liberal translation... keep the Conservitive, be tolerant.. be cautious.. be moderate... just like the book says. Very simple. Don't listen to a liberal tell you how the rules should be... its like listening to your kids on how the rules should be. You can hear them and judge the right thing to do... but in the end... you must make the choice and be responcible for it. A child is not.

Actually, his admin has used taxpayer money to pay journalists to write pro-admin propaganda, and tell me have you ever heard of Jeff Gannon?

So it WAS used to advertise the liberal leadersip.

I'm willing to bet that you're about tell me that he's a conserv that benefitted though

Liberalism is not destroying American, nor is Conservatism. The thing that is destroying america is the same thing we are doing right now. Argueing, without any care if the other side makes a valid point. The problem with today's society is the inability to listen and come to a compromise. The point of having two sides is to check one another,discuss a variety of points and come up with a solution based on the majority of the people.

Basically, the problem has come to he said,she said type of play and nobody is willing to listen to the other side anymore. :(

And I'd sure like you to explain what you mean by liberals being a great base for wannabe dictators. Oh, and while you're at it, post some examples of liberals supporting dictators. Yes, I believe that was the argument that Hitler used in the beginning. Someone who truly understood human greed... would not fall for such a line of crap. The pattern is the same for all dictators... their job is to convince you that what you said is true and keep you beliving it. Why do you think dictators getting started always seek out the young?

Liberalism is not destroying American, nor is Conservatism. The thing that is destroying america is the same thing we are doing right now. Argueing, without any care if the other side makes a valid point. The problem with today's society is the inability to listen and come to a compromise. The point of having two sides is to check one another,discuss a variety of points and come up with a solution based on the majority of the people.

Basically, the problem has come to he said,she said type of play and nobody is willing to listen to the other side anymore. :(


Denial is what always destroys nations. America is unique... Capitalism supports Conservitive values... while it handles liberal values quite well without war. Thus America is the first nation to basicly end starvation and put their children up on top as a culture.

I watch the news every day, and I see the latest stupidity of the Left in America, and political correctness runs rampent every day. Granted, there was a time when it was good to be liberal, but that was mid to late 18th centuary during the Guilded Age in America. However, it is destroying our national identity. Liberals want to allow illegales to have the same rights as natural born Americans, and they outlaw as much religion as they can. They say they support freedom of speech, but when someone who they disagree with speaks they silence them by calling them racist, sxist, ageist, etc., or they throw pie at them as they did to Ann Coulter during one of her speeches. Am I the only one on these forums who think liberalism has finished its usefulness in the world and is destroying America, and thus needs to be discarded before it completly destroys us? And what do you think should take its place if you do?

*edit* ok since people were missunderstanding something which I wrote, I rewrote some of it.


Yes. Liberalism has outlived its usefulness in America. Much the same way that water is completely useless on the moon. It's not there, so it can't really be put to any use.

We've got a rightist government completly dominated by the morally vacant, the socially hegemonic, and the economically anarchistic. The media that this post embraces as his source is full of half-truths and outright lies favored by the rightists who own the current government, and the left is completly incapable of getting a fair hearing.

e.g. I was just watching FOX news' "Big Story with John Gibson." For all the honesty in it, it should be called Big Fish. He actually called Gitmo a "great American institution." He said it houses 600 terrorists. Nowhere does the rightist media challenge this assumption by pointing out that these people were acquired in much the same way that Communists were in the McCarthy era. Offering their political enemies a fixed price for every person they give us. These are drug runners and slave traders and we're telling them "we'd like to buy some people from you, but you have to call them terrorists."

If this is the "news" that you embrace as a source of anything other than entertainment then no wonder you think that the left is stupid, much less that you think it even exists.

the way we love our children is by making laws to protect them... by the parent being conservitive... when the parent is liberal... they steal their childs life. They rob them of their future.

The same holds true for Nations and Laws... keep the laws conservitive... not strict... thats a loose translation of conservitive... or Liberal translation... keep the Conservitive, be tolerant.. be cautious.. be moderate... just like the book says. Very simple. Don't listen to a liberal tell you how the rules should be... its like listening to your kids on how the rules should be. You can hear them and judge the right thing to do... but in the end... you must make the choice and be responcible for it. A child is not.
So basically, "liberals are not fit to govern"? That's more dictatorial than anything I've heard from a liberal in this thread.

If conservatives love children so much more than liberals, why do they oppose the kind of child daycare and healthcare programmes that have proven so successful in other countries? Just because of their precious tax money?

Yes, I believe that was the argument that Hitler used in the beginning. Someone who truly understood human greed... would not fall for such a line of crap. The pattern is the same for all dictators... their job is to convince you that what you said is true and keep you beliving it. Why do you think dictators getting started always seek out the young?

Which is exactly why conservative groups are pouring such huge amounts of money into starting up nasscent "College Republicans" groups in colleges. Colleges are naturally liberal environments, being dominated by academic freedom and curiosity, but the would-be dictators on the American political right want to lure people to their side while they're still young and corruptable.

So it WAS used to advertise the liberal leadersip.

I'm willing to bet that you're about tell me that he's a conserv that benefitted though
Sorry, no I was talking about Bush there.

If the Democrats have been taken over by socialists, have they been pushing any socialist bills?
Anything about getting rid of capitalism, anything about social ownership of the means of production?
Until then, I can't very well believe that said democratic socialists are using the Democrat party to further socialism.

What do you call Hillary Clinton's attempt at socialized medicine or her out of the blue Child Care Crisis? Socialists in this country are not stupid. They were all but wiped out in the 1940's and 50's when they were totally rejected by the American people in name. Their only hope for power was to infect and take over one or both of the 2 major parties. You will not hear them say a thing about eliminating capitalism because they get huge amounts of money from business and it would tell everyone exactly who they are and what they believe in. You can choose to ignore the facts all you like, it doesnt matter one bit to me, but at least go check out their website, check the logo and follow the trail of their affiliated network members, before you decide to wait until the criminal admits the crime before believe it is true. By that time it will be so late the only options avaliable will be which side of the next civil war will you be on.

So basically, "liberals are not fit to govern"? That's more dictatorial than anything I've heard from a liberal in this thread.

If conservatives love children so much more than liberals, why do they oppose the kind of child daycare and healthcare programmes that have proven so successful in other countries? Just because of their precious tax money?

Not fit? No... just that laws must remain conservitive.

Other countries? interesting... most countries have a population of our States. Europes economy is tanking... they leech off Americas economy to the tune of 400 billion a year from upsidedown trade. Thats money that leaves and never comes back. Canada gets 40 billion a year... thats half their health care... paid for by America. So if we become like them.... who will by our goods ... I believe there would need to be a country that could buy about 500 billion more from us than we buy from them to make it a fair comparison. Does a country exist? No... so if it does not exsit then our economy tanks... if ours tanks... the 750 billion a year in trade deficets go away.. that money leaves the forgien countries market.. and their economy tanks even more..

So are we looking out for our children/.... yes... by not buying into the lazyness is good theory... no one goes hungry... only druggies and drunkards live under bridges.. and thats a choice... help is availible if they so choose it. Just has rules... but its a free country.

How about supporting the family instead so that we don't have all these single mothers out there? That is what is best for Kids.. how about supporting GOOD behavior... not saying you have to be mean ... but don't embrace or reward bad behavior. Help is there for anyone who needs it... but being lazy is not a need.

Republicans and Democrats are the same things. Both basicly liberals, just with a few diffrent agendas. Also, must we name call people for what they bealive in. Thought most Liberals preach everyone should be equal. :rolleyes:

Exactly how do you define "liberal" that you think that the term applies to the current Republican leadership? As far as I know the only source that calls Bush and his ilk "liberal" is the Neo-Nazi site Stormfront. Seriously. I've never heard it anywhere else.

Liverbreath']What do you call Hillary Clinton's attempt at socialized medicine or her out of the blue Child Care Crisis? Socialists in this country are not stupid. They were all but wiped out in the 1940's and 50's when they were totally rejected by the American people in name.

Their only hope for power was to infect and take over one or both of the 2 major parties. You will not hear them say a thing about eliminating capitalism because they get huge amounts of money from business and it would tell everyone exactly who they are and what they believe in.

You can choose to ignore the facts all you like, it doesnt matter one bit to me, but at least go check out their website, check the logo and follow the trail of their affiliated network members, before you decide to wait until the criminal admits the crime before believe it is true.

By that time it will be so late the only options avaliable will be which side of the next civil war will you be on.
The 50s? When tax rates were over 70%? Yes, really anti-socialist there.

If they take big money from big business, they are not socialists. Why would business pay politicians who will attack it?

Being socialist is not a crime.

...And there certainly will be no civil war over it.

So are we looking out for our children/.... yes... by not buying into the lazyness is good theory... no one goes hungry... only druggies and drunkards live under bridges.. and thats a choice... help is availible if they so choose it. Just has rules... but its a free country.

How about supporting the family instead so that we don't have all these single mothers out there? That is what is best for Kids.. how about supporting GOOD behavior... not saying you have to be mean ... but don't embrace or reward bad behavior. Help is there for anyone who needs it... but being lazy is not a need.
What liberal policies are you referring to here? This is just a mass of rambling thoughts.

Which is exactly why conservative groups are pouring such huge amounts of money into starting up nasscent "College Republicans" groups in colleges. Colleges are naturally liberal environments, being dominated by academic freedom and curiosity, but the would-be dictators on the American political right want to lure people to their side while they're still young and corruptable.

You crack me up... academic freedom in college only exists if you agree with the professors... I know... I didn't agree... I didn't buy into their Liberal propaganda.. yet I was liberal... I just know the difference between law and personal life.

Whats more funny is... A conservitive dictator... ... conservitives look at these people and say... you want to do what? Get lost... I am busy.

No, a dictator going to conservitives for power is like going to NASCAR in a YUGO. For real power... you need that MUSTANG... that Liberal base... and yes... thats where it comes from... each time they kill millions... the ones the live... go and rewrite history to blame that cow out in the field minding its own business. But... this ole cow.. is not hungry anymore.. its got capitalism... and it sees the truth... America is unique... and thats why the media and Liberals are freaking out... they just don't know how to destroy it like they have other countries.

Panic... panic.... Dan Rather... Newsweek... media stocks falling... people turning it off.... you will find just how much a minority... liberals really are.. the sleeping giant aint the loud mouth Liberal slob marching the street... no... its the silent ones.


gotta run... hope it helps...

... they leech off Americas economy to the tune of 400 billion a year from upsidedown trade. Thats money that leaves and never comes back. Canada gets 40 billion a year... thats half their health care... paid for by America.

Well, perhaps if America had dedicated itself to things other than the propogation of the consumer society you wouldn't be in that bind.

I'm getting a sense from your rambling piece that you feel America is owed something...?

Looks like you guys need a few things defined:

Conservative (Big C) - 1. A moderate to extreme authoritarian who follows right-wing economic policies 2. A political party in various countries

Liberal (Big L) - 1. A moderate to extreme libertarian who follows left-wing economic policies 2. A political in various countries

conservative (Little c) - 1. Believes in the policies of small government and increased liberties 2. a subscriber to right-wing economics

liberal (Little l) - 1. Believes in big government (but not necessarily decreased liberties) 2. a subscriber to left-wing economics

communist - One who subscribes to any of various forms of communism, most often anarcho-communism or some derivitive thereof

Communist - 1. Stalinist, authoritarian collectivist 2. A political party in various countries

Neo-conservative - 1. Generally, a fiscally liberal, economically conservative, socially authoritarian member of a movement born en masse in thw 1980's 2. Pro-war nationalist

Socialist - 1. One who believes in government driven wealth redistribution, either through direct currency enchange or government provided services, extreme end of left-wing economics 2. A politcial party in various countries

Capitalist - One who follows the writings of Adam Smith

communism - Free collectivism, people chose to participate in it by choice, generally includes abolishment of the state; weakens with scarceness of goods

capitalism - Free-market society which attaches values on things depending upon a supply versus demand graph; depends on scarcity of good for stability

Political party - An organized group which puts forward canidates or a certain group of ideals in a republic

bill of rights - A document that sets forth certain inalienable rights within a certain country

left-wing - Description of economic standpoint, generally holds that the government should interfere in the economy

right-wing - Description of economic standpoint, generally holds that the government should leave the economy alone

authoritarian - Description of social standpoint, generally holds that the government should interfere in its citizen's personal lives

libertarian - Description of social standpoint, generally holds that the government should not interfere in its citizen's personal lives

fiscal liberal - Description of governmental spending standpoint, generally holds that the government does not have to follow a balanced budget and generally does not think it should

fiscal conservative - Description of governmental spending standpoint, generally holds that the government must have a balanced budget and must be responsible to its financial standing

Now, not all of these are 100% accurate, but they're a lot better than the partisanly driven understanding your ignorant fools have of politics.

It's times like these I challenge my belief in democracy and sometimes think Plato had it right with his philosopher kings.

I always figured, from those who I know personally, that most conservatives would like to see liberalism as a political ideaology eliminated from American society.

After seeing the poll results, however, I am very disappointed to see that a lot of liberals feel the same way about conservatism.

It really dissapoints me to think of the way these peoples minds must operate. The most sure-fire way to destroy American society is to create a one-party/ideaology system...yet that is exactly what a large portion of people on both sides of the political spectrum advocate.

It will lead to authoritarianism and dictatorship, and all the evils associated with those systems...regardless of which "side" might take control.

Some people just can't seem to understand that there is a possibility that both ideaologies are needed in American society...

...and that really disappoints me. :(

[/rant]

Exactly how do you define "liberal" that you think that the term applies to the current Republican leadership? As far as I know the only source that calls Bush and his ilk "liberal" is the Neo-Nazi site Stormfront. Seriously. I've never heard it anywhere else.
They're fiscally and militarily liberal, but socially conservative.

Nas Rebels and Kisgard. Please go away, and let this thread burn. Your stupidity is appaling. First of all, NAS Rebels made a very stupid blunder in the title "Is Liberalism IS destroying america". By adding in an unnecessary "is" into the title, he just proved that all he says is no longer credible due to his stupidity. Second, the poll is rigged. It is either you are conservative or you are an extreme liberal and absolutely hate conservatives. Third, they have no idea what liberalism is and they automatically associated it to communism. I bet you that they dont know what communism is as well. If they had taken World History as a class, they would no that socialism and Marxism are the closest things to communism. Also, communism on paper doesnt sound bad at all. If the communist government was not the least bit corrupted, the country would get along fine. But all humans are corrupt in some ways making communism very flawed. But obviously they dont know that. To them, LIBERAL = DICTATOR!!! OMG!! WTF!!!!!111! LIBERALISM IS SO UN1337!!!111!!

In other words, everyone ignore them, they are both fools.

O, by the way here is something for both Nas and Kisgard:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php

America is unique... and thats why the media and Liberals are freaking out... they just don't know how to destroy it like they have other countries.
How laughably paranoid. You are a troll.

Yes Liberalism has a place in our country.. I know, I was one.. but know they want to make law... and thats a problem. Liberals are like children... you don't let your children make law... when you work... when you eat.. what you eat... what you spend the money on... if you did... the family would be destroyed... the way we love our children is by making laws to protect them... by the parent being conservitive... when the parent is liberal... they steal their childs life. They rob them of their future.

*sighs* Liberals are like childeren? Why? Because you label them that way? What does that mean in the long run? I see you tossing out labels and statemnts utterly unsupported by logic, but I have yet to see you give one good reason to get rid of liberalism. All I see is paper thin retoric that is eirily reminicent of something I would expect from Hitler. And a whole lot of '...'s

The same holds true for Nations and Laws... keep the laws conservitive... not strict... thats a loose translation of conservitive... or Liberal translation... keep the Conservitive, be tolerant.. be cautious.. be moderate... just like the book says. Very simple. Don't listen to a liberal tell you how the rules should be... its like listening to your kids on how the rules should be. You can hear them and judge the right thing to do... but in the end... you must make the choice and be responcible for it. A child is not.

More of the same, and incoincedently a closeminded statement regarding childeren. Perhaps you ought to take into account that childeren are the ones who live under your rules, and therefore might know more about their effect than you? Frankly, the only mindset we need to be rid of is the one who labels people and things, because it seems to be the cause of hate, irrationality, and misconception.

and to everyone else, leave my ideas out of this, i am asking for your opinions not for you to turn this into a flamefest about my politics.

Then you should have made a less biased poll, you troll. I made a rhyme!

I always figured, from those who I know personally, that most conservatives would like to see liberalism as a political ideaology eliminated from American society.

After seeing the poll results, however, I am very disappointed to see that a lot of liberals feel the same way about conservatism.

It really dissapoints me to think of the way these peoples minds must operate. The most sure-fire way to destroy American society is to create a one-party/ideaology system...yet that is exactly what a large portion of people on both sides of the political spectrum advocate.

It will lead to authoritarianism and dictatorship, and all the evils associated with those systems...regardless of which "side" might take control.

Some people just can't seem to understand that there is a possibility that both ideaologies are needed in American society...

...and that really disappoints me. :(

[/rant]


I agree with you completely. I believe a nation is like a boat. If you paddle too hard on one side or the other, you just end up going in circles. You must have a balance between the two extremes in order to progress.

Nas Rebels and Kisgard. Please go away, and let this thread burn. Your stupidity is appaling. First of all, NAS Rebels made a very stupid blunder in the title "Is Liberalism IS destroying america". By adding in an unnecessary "is" into the title, he just proved that all he says is no longer credible due to his stupidity. Second, the poll is rigged. It is either you are conservative or you are an extreme liberal and absolutely hate conservatives. Third, they have no idea what liberalism is and they automatically associated it to communism. I bet you that they dont know what communism is as well. If they had taken World History as a class, they would no that socialism and Marxism are the closest things to communism. Also, communism on paper doesnt sound bad at all. If the communist government was not the least bit corrupted, the country would get along fine. But all humans are corrupt in some ways making communism very flawed. But obviously they dont know that. To them, LIBERAL = DICTATOR!!! OMG!! WTF!!!!!111! LIBERALISM IS SO UN1337!!!111!!




Firstly, thank you so much. I was waiting for someone to say that. communism is a failed experiment not because its deals are flawed but because humans are flawed- The only reason communism doesn't work is because humans can be easily corrupted.


Secondly Librals do embrace change. What you don't seem to realize is that it is this embracement of change is what America was built for. Our forefathers realized that what works at one point might not always work and they designed our government to reflect that. The truth is that conservatives are traditional they fear change. Just look at their politics. Anti Gay marrage, against stem cell research. All these new things are good for our country, Librals support this stuff. Conservatives shun it.

I think both sides are destroying America. Both sides are so damned self serving that they ignore what the average person wants.
I definitley agree. They both need to communicate and compromise. The Left say "We want it this way and no other way." The Right say "Screw that. We want it this way." The key to civilization is communication.

You crack me up... academic freedom in college only exists if you agree with the professors... I know... I didn't agree... I didn't buy into their Liberal propaganda.. yet I was liberal... I just know the difference between law and personal life.

Whats more funny is... A conservitive dictator... ... conservitives look at these people and say... you want to do what? Get lost... I am busy.

No, a dictator going to conservitives for power is like going to NASCAR in a YUGO. For real power... you need that MUSTANG... that Liberal base... and yes... thats where it comes from... each time they kill millions... the ones the live... go and rewrite history to blame that cow out in the field minding its own business. But... this ole cow.. is not hungry anymore.. its got capitalism... and it sees the truth... America is unique... and thats why the media and Liberals are freaking out... they just don't know how to destroy it like they have other countries.

Panic... panic.... Dan Rather... Newsweek... media stocks falling... people turning it off.... you will find just how much a minority... liberals really are.. the sleeping giant aint the loud mouth Liberal slob marching the street... no... its the silent ones.


gotta run... hope it helps...

When Hitler wanted to overthrow democracy in Germany he went to the conservatives. The liberals were his biggest, and last, enemy in German politics.

When people were languishing under the American supported military dictatorship of the Samozas in Nicaragua it was the liberal intellectuals of that country, combined with the salutory neglect of the (relativly) liberal Carter administration, that made it possible. Once the "conservative" government of the Reagan administration came back to power it sought to re-impose military dictatorship and surely would have had the Iran-Contra scandal not become public knowledge.

Political correctness runs rampant? With people like Fred Phelps still get airtime? And what exactly is your national identity? Have you really had enough time to develop 'THE IDENTITY' that will last you down to the end of your days? Is it developed, done, no changes needed?

Illegals. Yes...those subhumans who come to your country without permission. Kind of like your original settlers.

Outlawing religion. When it was never a part of your government in the first place? When people have the right to follow whatever creed they wish? When they are not jailed, beaten, or exiled for their religion?

Pie throwing at Ann was bad...but spitting in Jane Fonda's face was 'justice'?

I'm sorry...I still don't see how 'liberalism' is 'destroying' the USA. It's not a flesh-eating disease, as far as I know *checks*...

Dispite my right wing stance I would say that I agree with the points you made (except that Jane Fonda was a tratorous whore who deserved to be publicly flogged before she was excecuted {ok so maybe not quite that severe ;) }. You should hear some of the acounts of Vietnam POWs that met Fonda when she 'visited' them in NV prison camps).

However I do believe that liberalism is destroying america in a moral way, just hear me out...

1. The current welfare system is good in that it keeps people fed and off the street but they lose their welfare if the i. Get a job ii get married iii purchase any large ticket item (house, care etc) or accumulates any real amount of savings. So basicly the welfare system is set up to prevent people from having upward mobility and it forces themto be dependant on the gov for the rest of their lives. A good solution that was presented by nobel prize winning conservitive economist Milton Freidmon has been ignored by both liberal and conservative polititions alike. (in a nut shell his plan is to allow varying degrees of welfare or adjust the amount recieved according to posessions and income rather than cutting it off at a certain point, and that is a poor representation for a better one read "Free to Choose" by Freidman).
If the gov is willing to support people who have no desire or make no effort to become productive then why should any of us work? Welfare would be better if they actually enforced the "will to work" program....

2. Socialized medican is a terrible idea. That should be obvious but here's a quick why...
Hospitals need to be run in a competitive environment. Why? Because why should the doctors give a damn if their jobs are secured by the gov?

3. Law suits are getting out of hand. (I know that many of you don't see this as a liberal caused problem but a large part of it is...). Ok before I go down this road let me set up my credentials for not being a racist. The big one is that my GF and soon to be Fiancé (when I grad college) is a colored girl. (half east indian, half German but I thought she was black when I met her, the German in her obsured her oriental fetures). We've been going out for almost three years. Now that said let me tell you that racial lawsuits are just absurd. I.E. Shoney's Resturants a few years ago was reduced down to a fraction of a size because of a racial lawsuit. Apparently some colored girl felt that she was fired because of her race when in reality she was fired because she "forgot" to show up for work. (I think that's right, I do remember that it was for something like that but I might have messed up the details). There are other examples but this has gotten way to long so I'm gonna just cut it off here.... sorry if that was too much.

Also, yeah there are ways in which conservative policies adversly affect this nation. I personally feel that there are more liberal policies that do but that's just my opinion. I've tried to be polite about this so please be polite in your replies. You have your views, I have mine. Everyone to their own. :cool:

Denial is what always destroys nations. America is unique... Capitalism supports Conservitive values... while it handles liberal values quite well without war. Thus America is the first nation to basicly end starvation and put their children up on top as a culture.


I'm sorry? What? Do you actually know anything at all about your country's history or about world history? What kind of lunatic "Uncle Sam's Guide to why the US Rocks and Everyone Else Sucks" book did you get that one from?

Liberalism is a very odd concept, and thanks for the definitions Chaos Experiment ;) . First of all, too much liberalism can cause an anarchy because of the freedom, however, way too much conservative-ness results in a dictatorship. So you need at least a little bit of liberals to make the country stand. However, I think most of the stuff they think is stupid crap. But even though I dont agree with their beliefs, without them, neither political party could stand at any given time. And the same with conservatives. We need them both. Thats right liberals, you need me! :D

I don't see what your problam is with liberalism NAS. If it weren't for it you would not enjoy many of the liberties you have today, weekends, child labor laws, religious freedoms, etc. Change doesn't destroy America, or the world for that matter, it helps it grow and progress into the modern world. Conservatives have shown that they are opposed to that as MastahBlastah said.

I don't see what your problam is with liberalism NAS. If it weren't for it you would not enjoy many of the liberties you have today, weekends, child labor laws, religious freedoms, etc. Change doesn't destroy America, or the world for that matter, it helps it grow and progress into the modern world. Conservatives have shown that they are opposed to that as MastahBlastah said.

child labor laws are a vile socialist plot to artificially boost the prevailing wage above what the market will bear. When the government interferes in the free market inflation and tyranny are the inevitable result. Were it not for child labor laws in this country we would not see our most lucrative manufacturing jobs being shipped overseas to countries like Bangladesh and provencial China. These countries know how to compete in a free market workplace and we will certainly see them rise to prominence as the new economic superpowers if we do not change our strategies to more successfully compete with theirs.

I agree with you completely. I believe a nation is like a boat. If you paddle too hard on one side or the other, you just end up going in circles. You must have a balance between the two extremes in order to progress.

Either that, or you could place the power in the middle. For purposes of this analogy, that would be an outboard motor. Of course, you have to be aware that we've got right wing people who have tied 10 or 20 oars together so that they can claim with a straight face that the "middle" is actually 10' off to the starboard side of the boat. We have "liberals" who are willing to admit that the middle may be as far as 9' to the starboard side for fear of being accused of being overly "port."

Look what being a liberal paradise has got us. The government stealing our tax dollars to fund the LIBERAL party. :gundge:

Bush hasn't done that.
Two names:

Halliburton and Cheney.

Do the math?

Nas Rebels and Kisgard. Please go away, and let this thread burn. Your stupidity is appaling. First of all, NAS Rebels made a very stupid blunder in the title "Is Liberalism IS destroying america". By adding in an unnecessary "is" into the title, he just proved that all he says is no longer credible due to his stupidity. Second, the poll is rigged. It is either you are conservative or you are an extreme liberal and absolutely conservatives. Third, they have no idea what liberalism is and they automatically associated it to communism. I bet you that they dont know what communism is as well. If they had taken World History as a class, they would no that socialism and Marxism are the closest things to communism. Also, communism on paper doesnt sound bad at all. If the communist government was not the least bit corrupted, the country would get along fine. But all humans are corrupt in some ways making communism very flawed. But obviously they dont know that. To them, LIBERAL = DICTATOR!!! OMG!! WTF!!!!!111! LIBERALISM IS SO UN1337!!!111!!

In other words, everyone ignore them, they are both fools.

O, by the way here is something for both Nas and Kisgard:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php

ok first of all, i do know what communism is because not only have i taken an advanced placent european history couse, i have studied the communist manifesto, the bolshevic revolution, lenin, and stalin. so i do have a basis for my ideas. second of all, you obviously havent read all i have written if you think i equate liberalism to nothing but communism because i specifically wrote a few pages ago that i do not believe that, so read everything before youi bash me. third, if you think the poll is rigged, im sorry i tried to make it fair, im sorry if i failed at that. and forth the second is was a mistake which i did not realise was there until you pointed it out, it was supposed to just be "is liberalism destroying america?" and thats all. calm down dude, seriously.

ok first of all, i do know what communism is because not only have i taken an advanced placent european history couse, i have studied the communist manifesto, the bolshevic revolution, lenin, and stalin. so i do have a basis for my ideas. second of all, you obviously havent read all i have written if you think i equate liberalism to nothing but communism because i specifically wrote a few pages ago that i do not believe that, so read everything before youi bash me. third, if you think the poll is rigged, im sorry i tried to make it fair, im sorry if i failed at that. and forth the second is was a mistake which i did not realise was there until you pointed it out, it was supposed to just be "is liberalism destroying america?" and thats all. calm down dude, seriously.

One question for you then: Explain Communism, in as much detail as you wish to put in. I'm not asking for anything particularily lengthy or complicated, just a simple straightforward explanation. I have gotten the feeling that you don't know much about what you speak of due to your recent comments. You have claimed to know a bit about Communism... care to show me?

Oh, and grammar is your friend and mine.

One question for you then: Explain Communism, in as much detail as you wish to put in. I'm not asking for anything particularily lengthy or complicated, just a simple straightforward explanation. I have gotten the feeling that you don't know much about what you speak of due to your recent comments. You have claimed to know a bit about Communism... care to show me?

Oh, and grammar is your friend and mine.
Care if I take a crack at it after he does? Mostly just bc I'm an econ nerd and want to see how well I can do. ^_^

I may not know a lot about politics or political history but don't disregard what I have to say because of that. Part of me agrees with some of what this person is saying. I think that in our society today, because of all the political correctness, it has become impossible to be strict with people and not mollycoddle them. For example, if a boss tells a worker they're doing a bad job, that person can turn around and claim they are sexist/racist/whatever. And if you think I'm exaggerating, think again. My dad works at a hospital and tells me about this stuff every day. Now, I'm going to take that thought a step further and ask: when people are allowed to do mediocre jobs and get paid the same amount as those who work hard what does that say about our society?

Dispite my right wing stance I would say that I agree with the points you made (except that Jane Fonda was a tratorous whore who deserved to be publicly flogged before she was excecuted {ok so maybe not quite that severe ;) }. You should hear some of the acounts of Vietnam POWs that met Fonda when she 'visited' them in NV prison camps).

She apologized what is with everyone being unable to forgive. Damning yourselves in the process(oh and Heavenly Father did say you MUST foirgive all; only he can choose).
Doesn't matter if you no belief in god; still sad you can't forgive.

However I do believe that liberalism is destroying america in a moral way, just hear me out...

MY BS radar is going off, but I'll listen.

1. The current welfare system is good in that it keeps people fed and off the street but they lose their welfare if the i. Get a job ii get married iii purchase any large ticket item (house, care etc) or accumulates any real amount of savings. So basicly the welfare system is set up to prevent people from having upward mobility and it forces themto be dependant on the gov for the rest of their lives. A good solution that was presented by nobel prize winning conservitive economist Milton Freidmon has been ignored by both liberal and conservative polititions alike. (in a nut shell his plan is to allow varying degrees of welfare or adjust the amount recieved according to posessions and income rather than cutting it off at a certain point, and that is a poor representation for a better one read "Free to Choose" by Freidman).
If the gov is willing to support people who have no desire or make no effort to become productive then why should any of us work? Welfare would be better if they actually enforced the "will to work" program....

I like the idea, but currently in Us allows you to be paid less welfare if you work.
Does your plan suggest paid more welfare if work and still make below poverty line?

2. Socialized medican is a terrible idea. That should be obvious but here's a quick why...
Hospitals need to be run in a competitive environment. Why? Because why should the doctors give a damn if their jobs are secured by the gov?

Ever heard of Free Clinics, they actually exist, but few because must pay for itself.
A doctor that doesn't gives a damn is both sued and loses his job (easy money probably). So it isn't secured because of that.

Socialized general medicine would live side the rest of capitalized medicine. You might say, people would more likely use Socialist but not the rich because they know they can trust Cap medicine much more to do a better job.

Specialist wouldf still be Capitalist medicine; Social would just be general.


3. Law suits are getting out of hand. (I know that many of you don't see this as a liberal caused problem but a large part of it is...). Ok before I go down this road let me set up my credentials for not being a racist. The big one is that my GF and soon to be Fiancé (when I grad college) is a colored girl. (half east indian, half German but I thought she was black when I met her, the German in her obsured her oriental fetures). We've been going out for almost three years. Now that said let me tell you that racial lawsuits are just absurd. I.E. Shoney's Resturants a few years ago was reduced down to a fraction of a size because of a racial lawsuit. Apparently some colored girl felt that she was fired because of her race when in reality she was fired because she "forgot" to show up for work. (I think that's right, I do remember that it was for something like that but I might have messed up the details). There are other examples but this has gotten way to long so I'm gonna just cut it off here.... sorry if that was too much.


I'll rewtirte that without the fluff:

Law suits are getting out of hand. (I know that many of you don't see this as a liberal caused problem but a large part of it is...) Now that said let me tell you that racial lawsuits are just absurd. I.E. Shoney's Resturants a few years ago was reduced down to a fraction of a size because of a racial lawsuit. Apparently some colored girl felt that she was fired because of her race when in reality she was fired because she "forgot" to show up for work.

Okay, being fired for not working or showing up isn't a racial argument or related to race. The fact that you had to defend yourself preemptively means you felt guilty.
The question is why are you feeling guilty? Plus next time show a racial lawsuit that is actually racial please.

Also please illistrate a Liberal lawsuit. That is just a lazy lawsuit. I know some white people who would do same, it isn't a "black" thing.

Look what being a liberal paradise has got us. The government stealing our tax dollars to fund the LIBERAL party. :gundge:

Bush hasn't done that.
I think i gave the impression that i approve of liberalism, i most certaintly don't. Multiculturalism is a sacred cow here in Canada and like most sacred cows it deserves to be hamburger :mad: Sure, equal rights for everybody but when Ontario, the largest province in the country is seriously considering allowing Sharia, a muslim form of law, i say we are going too far. Importing culture yes, importing laws, no.

I think i gave the impression that i approve of liberalism, i most certaintly don't. Multiculturalism is a sacred cow here in Canada and like most sacred cows it deserves to be hamburger :mad: Sure, equal rights for everybody but when Ontario, the largest province in the country is seriously considering allowing Sharia, a muslim form of law, i say we are going too far. Importing culture yes, importing laws, no.
I find your comment interesting. Could you please provide a source that Ontario is "seriously considering allowing Sharia", and the purpose of such?

Thanks ;)

I watch the news every day

I don't know why anybody would want to debate with you since you obviously know your shit. I mean you actually watch the news every day?

I do believe that it is. First there's the Pledge deal, all fine and dandy, it got shot down. But what next? Take "IN GOd We Trust" of currency? That's been there for ages. They're also breaking down morals of society, creating a perverted mob. Gay marrage? I'm sorry, but we all know deep down that that's just wrong. It's unnatural. And what bothers me most is their own sterotypes. According to them:

I'm white=I'm racist
I'm Protestant=I have no judgement/morals of my own
I'm straight=I'm homophobic
I'm male=I'm sexist
I'm conservative=I'm a biast asshole who's trying to run America into the ground.

I'm sorry, but America was founded to PREVENT this sort of stuff from forming. Sure, it did have its usefulness, and it does keep balance, but remember, liberalism can still cause dictatorships. Read "Farenheit 451". In it, society (Read: Liberals) censored all written documents so that no one is offended, and triied to keep everyone happy until an organized anarchy was formed. So when people say too much conservatisim can spawn dictatorships, remember, so can too much liberalism. And right now, that's what we've got. We're already on that path with this "Political Correctness" bullcrap.

I'm white=I'm racist

Most of the liberals you are raging against are white. I doubt they hold a stereotype that white people are racist.

I'm Protestant=I have no judgement/morals of my own

Quite the opposite, most liberals think that all people have judgements and morals of their own, no matter what religion they are. A great deal of religious conservatives believe that people who don't accept their religious views are immoral.

I'm straight=I'm homophobic

To quote you:

"They're also breaking down morals of society, creating a perverted mob. Gay marrage? I'm sorry, but we all know deep down that that's just wrong."

Unreasonable paranoia and repulsion is a key symptom of phobias, and from your comments you have unreasonable paranoia and repulsion towards homosexuality.

And, most of the liberals you are raging about are straight, so I don't think that they have the stereotype that straight people are homophobic.

I'm male=I'm sexist

A great deal of liberals are males, myself included. Do I or those other males think that men are sexist? Nope.

I'm conservative=I'm a biast asshole

That isn't a stereotype, it can be reasonably asserted from your completely unreasonable comments.

She apologized what is with everyone being unable to forgive. Damning yourselves in the process(oh and Heavenly Father did say you MUST foirgive all; only he can choose).
Doesn't matter if you no belief in god; still sad you can't forgive.

I didn't know that she did that. If she truely is sorry I can forgive her for myself but really even from a christan standpoint I would understand if the people that went through the POW camps couldn't. Thanks for correcting me.


I like the idea, but currently in Us allows you to be paid less welfare if you work.
Does your plan suggest paid more welfare if work and still make below poverty line?

Yeah it does. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I'm rather sick and disoreinted right now.

Ever heard of Free Clinics, they actually exist, but few because must pay for itself.
A doctor that doesn't gives a damn is both sued and loses his job (easy money probably). So it isn't secured because of that.

Yeah there are good people out there. However I live in a small town that only has one real hospital. Infact my dad works there that's how I know about this. In this instance a doctor let a patient's baby die (in childbirth) because he didn't want to be disturbed at dinner. (Now thats really paraphrasing but still... ). The doctor still has his job and was sued but didn't pay a dime bc of his insurance. :mad: I feel that that problem would get worse with gov subsidized meds


Socialized general medicine would live side the rest of capitalized medicine. You might say, people would more likely use Socialist but not the rich because they know they can trust Cap medicine much more to do a better job.

Perhaps I have some faulty sources? I'll look into it but that's not the story I heard...


Okay, being fired for not working or showing up isn't a racial argument or related to race. The fact that you had to defend yourself preemptively means you felt guilty.
The question is why are you feeling guilty? Plus next time show a racial lawsuit that is actually racial please.
Yeah that wasn't a good argument. I would try to do better but I don't really feel like it. I still disagree with you but whatever. I don't feel guitly but all the times I've been called a racist for what really arn't racist views has made me jumpy. My GF dosn't mind if I use her as proof that I'm not. (Infact it was her idea in the firstplace)

The hatred between liberalism and conservatism does more damage to the nation than either combinded. It's just not worth it. I used to get really angry and up in arms about political stuff but I'm trying to be better about it. Perhaps that would be a good goal for us all.

A modern liberal is a socialist, plain and simple. Hitler was a socialist too, you know. He was also strongly in favor of gun control and disarming citizens.

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

Godwin at 8.5 pages.

IN response to Vittos:

Hey, just repeating what I've been called, many times, might I add. I'm not homophobic, never have been, never will be. Let them live their life in peace, and don't bother me, or ask me what I think, cause ya'll know now.

And you're right, scratch Protestant, and put in Christian. We've all heard of how Christians try to convert everyone. I'm not one of those.

Unreasonable paranoia and repulsion is a key symptom of phobias, and from your comments you have unreasonable paranoia and repulsion towards homosexuality.

Let's come back here a second. I never said I was repeled by it. As stated above, let them go on with their lives, but still, if it's allowed too much, like it's about to be, there will be a very angry straight mob, and that will be trouble. Our current system has worked fine for over 200 years, why change now?

That isn't a stereotype, it can be reasonably asserted from your completely unreasonable comments.

This one really gets me, folks. I'm not biast against liberals, I do agree on some of their veiws. There was a famous quote I heared, John Locke, if I remember correctly. Let me use it now. "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I'm sorry, but when you subscribe to freedom of speech, as Mr. Locke and I do, you can't really be biast. It's people like you that jump the gun to retaliate that are the problem. By your above line, you've proven that YOU are biast, by not even giving me a chance to go on further with what I have to say, which is, we've had a fine system for 200 hundred years, and a group of people are trying to change that which has worked, and is working just fine. Don't mess with something that's not broken.

IN response to Vittos:

Hey, just repeating what I've been called, many times, might I add. I'm not homophobic, never have been, never will be. Let them live their life in peace, and don't bother me, or ask me what I think, cause ya'll know now.

You cannot say that deep down everyone knows that homosexuality is wrong and that homosexuals and their supporters are creating a "perverted mob", and then say that you are not paranoid and repulsed by homosexuality. Face it, you are a homophobe.

And you're right, scratch Protestant, and put in Christian. We've all heard of how Christians try to convert everyone. I'm not one of those.

Protestants are christians, and christians fit into what I said. Christian followers have morals, Islamic followers have morals, atheists have morals. That is a liberal point of view. The attempt to separate people and have separate treatment of people based on their religion is a traditionalist and fundamentalist point of view.

As stated above, let them go on with their lives, but still, if it's allowed too much, like it's about to be, there will be a very angry straight mob, and that will be trouble.

Ok, so you say to let them go about their lives, but don't let them marry?

You say that if homosexuality becomes to pervasive then straight people will begin to act violently? Let me point out that when blacks fought for their civil rights that there was a very angry and violent mob that fought them (much more angry and violent than this "straight mob" would be) and they overcame and are still overcoming those bigots. Homosexuals will do just the same.

Our current system has worked fine for over 200 years, why change now?

Our current system of what?

And after you answer, just remember that slavery and the feudal system lasted for much longer, so why did we change those systems?

This one really gets me, folks. I'm not biast against liberals, I do agree on some of their veiws. There was a famous quote I heared, John Locke, if I remember correctly. Let me use it now. "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I'm sorry, but when you subscribe to freedom of speech, as Mr. Locke and I do, you can't really be biast. It's people like you that jump the gun to retaliate that are the problem. By your above line, you've proven that YOU are biast, by not even giving me a chance to go on further with what I have to say, which is, we've had a fine system for 200 hundred years, and a group of people are trying to change that which has worked, and is working just fine. Don't mess with something that's not broken.

Ok, first, it is biased.

Second, you have shown by rattling off several stereotypes about liberals (liberals are out to destroy religion, liberals think men are sexist and whites are racist) that you are biased against liberals.

Third, that quote was by Voltaire (EDIT: It is a paraphrase of Voltaire, actually), who along with John Locke were two of the first liberals. They were two of the most important components of the Enlightenment which spawned the Liberal movement.

Fourth, I have disagreed with your comments unanimously, yet never once have I told you to shut up, or said that people who hold your opinion should be silenced.

Fifth, your opinion on the rights of homosexuals show that you are only taking the freedom ideas of Voltaire and Locke in a half-assed manner. You are very inconsistent in what freedoms you choose to defend.

Sixth, the system that has worked for 200 years is democracy, and is rooted in dissent and change. Our government was founded on much of the ideas of Locke, in that all people deserve equal rights and opportunities. What you are proposing, like all the other people whose traditionalist ideas have come and gone, is a hinderance of the system that has worked so well for 200 years.

Face it, you are a homophobe.

Okay, going with a personal attack now, are we? That, I do believe is a hit below the belt. And you, my friend, should face the fact that you are afraid that your dream of a perfect little society where everyone is all happy and gay (not the slang meaning) will never see the light of day. Because there will always be the one person who is not happy. Face it, you're afraid of someone else's view, and so you resort to personal attacks. Not once have I used any on you. I've not called you sexist, biased, homophobic, or anything else, yet you go there. Why do you resort to such lowly attacks? Answer, because you are weak. Here's a lesson, do not personally attack someone to make a point, it isn't an honorable way, and it isn't a favorable way. Strong people find other ways of making their point. Good day to you.

(And by the way, one of my best friends is a lesbian. Thought you might want to know that. Make sure you know someone so you can wisely choose an attack, if you're going that low.)

Hm! As of this writing, of the 57 people have voted for the who voted for the more conservative side 35 chose the more nuanced "Yes, somewhat, but some of its ideas should be embraced while others gotten rid of."

Meanwhile, of the 81 who chose the Left positions at the time of this writing 69 went with the more extreme "No Way! It needs to go further and all forms of conservatism must be destroyed forever".

Conclusion: If this survey is any guide and the proportions don't change, we may safely assume that it is the Left that contains the greater proportion of fanatics, twits and chowderheads. Sad but true.

Okay, going with a personal attack now, are we? That, I do believe is a hit below the belt.

If you take offence at being called a homophobe, maybe you should work to change your homophobic behavior. I have pointed out two of your comments that show blatantly homophobic viewpoints.

And you, my friend, should face the fact that you are afraid that your dream of a perfect little society where everyone is all happy and gay (not the slang meaning) will never see the light of day. Because there will always be the one person who is not happy.

What meaning of the word "gay" is slang?

I am not trying to ensure happiness, I am trying to erase all government measures that run counter to the opportunity to happiness. The banning of gay marriage will adversely affect the happiness of many, many individuals who have all the same right to be happy as you and I do. If you believe that giving homosexuals the opportunity to marry will actually make you unhappy, it once again seems to me that you are a homophobe.

And I do not use the term "homophobe" as a personal attack, it is my honest and reasonable opinion of your behavior and thoughts.

Face it, you're afraid of someone else's view, and so you resort to personal attacks. Not once have I used any on you. I've not called you sexist, biased, homophobic, or anything else, yet you go there. Why do you resort to such lowly attacks? Answer, because you are weak. Here's a lesson, do not personally attack someone to make a point, it isn't an honorable way, and it isn't a favorable way. Strong people find other ways of making their point. Good day to you.

You have called my biased (which may be accurate) and you have now called me weak. You have failed to explain why your comments have not been homophobic in nature. You have ignored my comments on the true nature of liberalism. You have not even adequately defended your beliefs on gay marriage.

Instead of singling out what you feel was a personal attack, how about ignoring that and concentrating on the points that I made in an "honorable way"?

(And by the way, one of my best friends is a lesbian. Thought you might want to know that. Make sure you know someone so you can wisely choose an attack, if you're going that low.)

Oh, thats the kicker. Next time you see her, tell her how you really feel and say:

Gay marrage? I'm sorry, but we all know deep down that that's just wrong. It's unnatural.

See if she is still one of your best friends.

I watch the news every day, and I see the latest stupidity of the Left in America, and political correctness runs rampent every day. Granted, there was a time when it was good to be liberal, but that was mid to late 18th centuary during the Guilded Age in America. However, it is destroying our national identity. Liberals want to allow illegales to have the same rights as natural born Americans, and they outlaw as much religion as they can. They say they support freedom of speech, but when someone who they disagree with speaks they silence them by calling them racist, sxist, ageist, etc., or they throw pie at them as they did to Ann Coulter during one of her speeches. Am I the only one on these forums who think liberalism has finished its usefulness in the world and is destroying America, and thus needs to be discarded before it completly destroys us? And what do you think should take its place if you do?

*edit* ok since people were missunderstanding something which I wrote, I rewrote some of it.

I'd say, define liberal. People who are ALL the way intense left, who want to ban saying God practically anywhere... dude, that's just sad. And I'm extremely liberal myself. My view of liberal means live and let live. Treat everyone tolerantly. You're Christian? Good for you. You're gay? Have a nice day. Do the conservatives here have something against this particular viewpoint? That no two people are the same, so we should just accept people the way they are?

...and by the way, tolerance generally doesn't mean pieing conservatives. They're people too. Not saying I agree with her, that is, just that she's entitled to her views. Without having dessert shoved in her face.

Hm! As of this writing, of the 57 people have voted for the who voted for the more conservative side 35 chose the more nuanced "Yes, somewhat, but some of its ideas should be embraced while others gotten rid of."

Meanwhile, of the 81 who chose the Left positions at the time of this writing 69 went with the more extreme "No Way! It needs to go further and all forms of conservatism must be destroyed forever".

Conclusion: If this survey is any guide and the proportions don't change, we may safely assume that it is the Left that contains the greater proportion of fanatics, twits and chowderheads. Sad but true.

You are ridiculous. You give three options saying that either liberalism is destroying America or will destroy America, and one option saying that liberalism is not destroying America with a clause that conservatism should be destroyed.

This reminds me of a Mitch Hedberg(RIP) joke. He went into a job interview, and they started asking him strangely worded questions like: "Have you ever taken sugar or PCP?"

In other words if you want reasonable answers give reasonable choices.

In other words if you want reasonable answers give reasonable choices.

Agreed. One thing I must say is that very few of these polls have an option I agree with 100%. Actually, so far, I can't even think of one. Obviously options might go on forever to make people happy, but it's still biased to base information off a survey where the choices are skewed.

You are ridiculous. You give three options saying that either liberalism is destroying America or will destroy America, and one option saying that liberalism is not destroying America with a clause that conservatism should be destroyed.

This reminds me of a Mitch Hedberg(RIP) joke. He went into a job interview, and they started asking him strangely worded questions like: "Have you ever taken sugar or PCP?"

In other words if you want reasonable answers give reasonable choices.

Agreed. I'm a liberal, and I think there are a lot of progressive ideals that need to move forward. That doesn't mean I think that all forms of conservatism need to be eliminated from our country, or whatever the option exactly said. I chose that option, though, because there isn't such an option that liberalism should move forward without suggesting the complete destruction of people who disagree. This is where all those messed up statistics come from -- people pick something because none of the options match what they really think, and then someone draws conclusions based on the results from it.

i think some liberal ideas are really good... and overall in society there should always be a liberal feeling.. but i think a lot of liberal stuff goes way to far... like all those "ACLU" idiots who get mad at christians for celebrating christmas, and making us call it winter holiday not christmas holiday... all that stupid stuf... beleive it nor not, we were founded on christian principles. and thats a good thing. all our laws are based on chrstian principles. without christian principles, killing woulnd't be "wrong"... it may be illegal... but it wouldnt be "wrong" (just wrong by the laws standards)... and whenever someone calls a person a racist for making a remark that may very well not be racist... calling someone black is not racist... and they always say just because.. say i was in charge of a newspaper.. and i hired a white guy over a black guy... they'll call me a racist... cuz theyre stpid.. look, i dont give a crap about race. in fact, i hate racial distinctions. people should focus on what makes us the same, not what makes us different... i leave down in california.. so i see all these "chicano power" bumper stickers... no offense.. but screw chicano power. PEOPLE POWER. it shouldnt matter your race. you shouldnt parade your heritage around. cuz it doesnt really matter... we're all people.. and that;'s whats important...

PC and all that stuff sucks too..

i think abortion is the right thing to do.. i discourage it, i think it should be limited... but look.. it's the right of a woman to choose. although i wish she would choose to give a baby life.

gay rights- basically, look, if you're gay. its fine. as long as you don't gloat about yourself and preach about how gay you are. you're fine. just act normal. i dont care if you're a guy and you like guys... or a girl who likes girls... we're all people!!!... but.. too make all those christian people happy.. i think we should give homosexuals "civil unions" that are technically the EXACT SAME as marriage. same rights, same protection. but don't call it marriage! at least not officially. because that will just piss some christian people off...

i think some liberal ideas are really good... and overall in society there should always be a liberal feeling.. but i think a lot of liberal stuff goes way to far... like all those "ACLU" idiots who get mad at christians for celebrating christmas, and making us call it winter holiday not christmas holiday... all that stupid stuf... beleive it nor not, we were founded on christian principles. and thats a good thing. all our laws are based on chrstian principles. without christian principles, killing woulnd't be "wrong"... it may be illegal... but it wouldnt be "wrong" (just wrong by the laws standards)... and whenever someone calls a person a racist for making a remark that may very well not be racist... calling someone black is not racist... and they always say just because.. say i was in charge of a newspaper.. and i hired a white guy over a black guy... they'll call me a racist... cuz theyre stpid.. look, i dont give a crap about race. in fact, i hate racial distinctions. people should focus on what makes us the same, not what makes us different... i leave down in california.. so i see all these "chicano power" bumper stickers... no offense.. but screw chicano power. PEOPLE POWER. it shouldnt matter your race. you shouldnt parade your heritage around. cuz it doesnt really matter... we're all people.. and that;'s whats important...

PC and all that stuff sucks too..

i think abortion is the right thing to do.. i discourage it, i think it should be limited... but look.. it's the right of a woman to choose. although i wish she would choose to give a baby life.

gay rights- basically, look, if you're gay. its fine. as long as you don't gloat about yourself and preach about how gay you are. you're fine. just act normal. i dont care if you're a guy and you like guys... or a girl who likes girls... we're all people!!!... but.. too make all those christian people happy.. i think we should give homosexuals "civil unions" that are technically the EXACT SAME as marriage. same rights, same protection. but don't call it marriage! at least not officially. because that will just piss some christian people off...

Agreed with most of that. Specific sections, however, might need some comment. Mostly the part about priniciples. Christians may have their own code of priniciples, but they are certainly not the only ones. Jewish values are the ones Christian values are based off, for example. And Muslim values evolved from Christian ones. They consider murder, rape, and violence to be evil too, but they're not Christian, are they? Mmmm. We didn't HAVE to be founded by Christians to make murder illegal. Only other thing worth note was the Chicano Pride statement. Agreed, everyone should be given equal consideration for jobs, as friends or coworkers or politicians or whatnot. But disapproving of their pride in their heritage, their upbringing and their culture isn't going to gain them anything either. And I'm not sure about the civil union thing, but I don't know enough to comment right now.

Otherwise, kudos.

You are ridiculous. You give three options saying that either liberalism is destroying America or will destroy America, and one option saying that liberalism is not destroying America with a clause that conservatism should be destroyed.

This reminds me of a Mitch Hedberg(RIP) joke. He went into a job interview, and they started asking him strangely worded questions like: "Have you ever taken sugar or PCP?"

In other words if you want reasonable answers give reasonable choices.


Actually, I do not give anything since I was not the person who designed this survey. I merely observe and smile. ^_^

But to use your joke, no one told Mitch Hedberg that he was obliged to go to that interview or have anything to do with that company once the question was asked. Likewise, no one held a gun to the head of anyone who took this survey and said that they had to take it. Anyone who truly felt the questions were unfair and still bothered to answer it was a ninny to do so. :P

Agreed. One thing I must say is that very few of these polls have an option I agree with 100%. Actually, so far, I can't even think of one. Obviously options might go on forever to make people happy, but it's still biased to base information off a survey where the choices are skewed.

As you yourself noted any survey skews the choices involved. That's why I seldom take them seriously. But even within the way a survey is skewed there are stilll choices to be made which is why the way those choices, if honestly compiled, can still be significant. The fact that most liberals were willing to choose destruction of all other forms of conservatism rather than "I don't think liberalism is destroying America but I wouldn't want to see it go further" *or not bothering to answer if they don't like the survey" does indicate that the liberals themselves do seem biased in the direction of fanaticism. That is not uncommon in a declining political movement since anyone who isn't a "True Believer" does tend to fall by the wayside.

Agreed. I'm a liberal, and I think there are a lot of progressive ideals that need to move forward. That doesn't mean I think that all forms of conservatism need to be eliminated from our country, or whatever the option exactly said. I chose that option, though, because there isn't such an option that liberalism should move forward without suggesting the complete destruction of people who disagree. This is where all those messed up statistics come from -- people pick something because none of the options match what they really think, and then someone draws conclusions based on the results from it.

*Blinks*

You chose an option without bothering to know exactly what it was saying and then you have the gall to complain about imprecise wording? Sheesh! @_@

Once again, even if neither choice precisely fit the way you thought the fact that you would choose one over the other when you didn't have to select either is still significant in measuring the way you guys value
nuance vs. fervor. If you think that "moving forward" is more important than abstaining from destroying those who don't agree with you then do you truly have the right to complain when someone points that out?

BTW, welcome to the Nation States game! You might not know it but a lot of the questions you get in the game are going to be like that as well. ^_~

I do believe that it is. First there's the Pledge deal, all fine and dandy, it got shot down. But what next? Take "IN GOd We Trust" of currency? That's been there for ages. They're also breaking down morals of society, creating a perverted mob. Gay marrage? I'm sorry, but we all know deep down that that's just wrong. It's unnatural. And what bothers me most is their own sterotypes. According to them:


"Under God" was added to the pledge 60 years after it was written, without the writer's consent, with the sole purpose to single out Atheists and Communists.
"In God We Trust" has not been on the US currency for ages... Try just a little over A century and a quarter, about four or five generations. It was added in 1864 on the two-cent coin. Shortly there after, it disappeared from all mint, and reappeared in 1938 on the Jefferson Nickel.

Of course, this didn't become the National Motto of the United States until 1956, which was taken largely, once again, to single out Atheists and Communists. Welcome to History. Take a seat in your desk please.

So who decides what is moral and what is not in society? Surely the religious... right, they know exactly what is moral with all their slander and lying, oh! WAIT! Let's not forget about bigotry! HATRED! OH YES! So moral, my ass. Morality has very little to do with the law, because frankly morality is objective.

And frankly, I find nothing at all immoral about homosexuality. If two people love each, why not? Let them get married. They plan on spending their life together.

"But what about the sanctity of marriage, blah blah blah?"

I am so sick of hearing this one(Although you didn't say it, I need to get this off my chest). Frankly, the sanctity of marriage is gone. When a man can legally divorce a woman, or vice versa, there is no sanctity. When a person can marry ten different people in their lifetime, oh is there sanctity there. Why not make divorce illegal? I ask that! Why, if you are so worried about the sanctity of marriage, do you not make divorce illegal? Why not make infidelity illegal? The only reason why people are opposed to it is because they are bigotted. Simple. As. That.

-End Rant


I'm white=I'm racist
I'm Protestant=I have no judgement/morals of my own
I'm straight=I'm homophobic
I'm male=I'm sexist
I'm conservative=I'm a biast asshole who's trying to run America into the ground.


I'm Black(Are any other non-caucasian)=I'm a loud mouth convict wanting to beat you up for your money
I'm Atheist=I am completely immoral
I'm Homosexual=I'm a third class citizen, who doesn't deserve the rights of others
I'm Female=I'm a Feminist Nazi
I'm Liberal=I'm a communist bastard trying to destore this country with all of my un-American propaganda

Works both ways. Who woulda guessed?


I'm sorry, but America was founded to PREVENT this sort of stuff from forming. Sure, it did have its usefulness, and it does keep balance, but remember, liberalism can still cause dictatorships. Read "Farenheit 451". In it, society (Read: Liberals) censored all written documents so that no one is offended, and triied to keep everyone happy until an organized anarchy was formed. So when people say too much conservatisim can spawn dictatorships, remember, so can too much liberalism. And right now, that's what we've got. We're already on that path with this "Political Correctness" bullcrap.

And Conservatism can cause dictatorships just as easily. I see both Liberalism and Conservatism as being on same ground-neither is better than the other, and both are equally needed. Read: 1984, in which The Party(read conservatives) "protects" and controls everything and everyone because the people because of the so-called immoral society before, shaping it to what it wants society to look like(Abridged version). Works both ways, man, works both wys.

And remember: Conservatism is getting way out of hand as well. Both sides are getting way to far out on their branches, until one day the branch is gonig to snap. I agree that "Politcal Correctness" is getting way out of hand these days, but what of "Our way or your Unpatriotic" bull pulled by the Cons? Simply put, boths sides are full of:

A)Idiots
B)Greedy assholes
C)People who only cater to their party, and could give a giant pile of shit less what happens to the rest of us.
D)Power hungry Dictatorship types.

I couldn't vote for any options on the poll because I disagree with all of them.

There will always be liberals and conservatives untill we reach an orwellian stage or we all die.

If liberals vanished from the word it wouldn't change anything. they would just sprout up again. same with conservatives. they'd be different mind you, but they'd still be there. the old vs. the new. the underdog vs. the establishment.

I couldn't vote for any options on the poll because I disagree with all of them.
same here. I'm liberal but I niether want to stop us in our tracks nor destroy conservatives.

same here. I'm liberal but I niether want to stop us in our tracks nor destroy conservatives.

Well I'm from Australia, and here the Liberals ARE the conservatives. :eek:
[edit]but you're right, we need a party of stability and a party of progress for good government.

I know what you're saying.
I agree with everything seangolia stated above. too much of anything will produce a dictatorship.

I find your comment interesting. Could you please provide a source that Ontario is "seriously considering allowing Sharia", and the purpose of such?

Thanks ;)
The word SHARIA means '' the path to the watering hole''. It is a mostly informal Islamic code based on Koran, adapted by most moslems in muslim countries .It deals with contract law banking, inheritance among other aspects . It decrees men& women dress modestly and advocates segregation of the sexes as well as the wearing of the veil. If you have heard of stoning and lashing for Adultery, cutting off of hands for theft...you are dealing with SHARIA. Currently about 50 countries of moslem population subscribe to SHARIA, but only Saudia Arabia enforces the serious Hadd offences, with Jordan ,Egypt,Lebanon, Syria,Pakistan, enforcing it to a lesser degree.www.nosharia.com/ let me know what you think.

Oh wow. You want to defend the Gilded age as a paradise? In my mind, excluding wars, it was one of, if not the, worst portion of American history. If you really want to have a debate on this, give me your best shot. There's no defense of the policies of that period.

That being said, the rest of the post is also wrong. And Ann Coulter is an idiot. She deserves to get the pie in the face.
Quotes:"We should kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
"School desegregation led to students knifing each other in the hallways in between acts of sodomy."

And I don't feel the need to dignify much of this with a response. Liberal democratic capitalism is the only system proven to be successful. It continues to be so.

A paradise it wasn't, for the vast majority of the working class. However, it was still better than what had come before. What do you find so incredibly objectionable about the Gilded Age? Being a student of the 19th/early 20th centuries, I'm very intrigued by your condemnation and would love to hear more.

So Ann Coulter has said some crazy stuff. Does she still deserve to get a pie in the face? Funny how the first people to quote Voltaire ("I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it") are also the first people to say "Served 'im right" whenever it's one a them Coldhearted, Bigoted Conservatives whose right to free speech is being violated. Principles aren't something you can pick and choose when to apply.

Lastly, "liberal democratic capitalism" has indeed been shown to be the most effective governmental/economic system thus far. If you're a liberal in the 21st-century American sense, you're a socialist, not the heir of those who first introduced liberal democratic capitalism. The true liberals, in the original 19th-C. sense, would be horrified by most of the Democratic Party's platforms. I grant you, they'd probably be horrified of most of the GOP's stuff too, but slightly less. :p

Both liberals and conservatives seek to impose themselves on others. NeoCons do as much damage.

Like it or not... both liberal and conservitive is a pattern of behavior.. try using a dictionary...
Funny thing is, i did. And look what it found!

No entry found for conservitive.
Now, liberals don't like their spots... so they keep trying to change the... you can't... you can only accept the truth and stop supporting making law follow this pattern of behavior... As defined...if you are not bound by law..licentious... how can you make law? Hence the delima... its like allowing children to make rules for the family... and watch it be destroyed.
How about you be a bit more conservative with the written word, so that i might actually have a slight chance of grasping what you try to get at? If children like you make up their rules for semantics, the language will be destroyed.

Tradition can never be dictated...it comes from free will only... thus to support traditional values is to support free will. To support dicated values is a loose translation of traditional... thus Liberal.

I disagree with your assertion that supporting values supports free will. Firstly, it is arguable that values come from free will; they are a product of society as a whole, rather than individual decisions. To an extent, our values are dictated to us by society.
Even assuming that values did come from free will, if you restrict people from changing traditional values (I assume that's what you mean by 'supporting traditional values'), you are basically attempting to dictate tradition to them.


By the way...you *really* need to be clearer and structure your argument better.

Canada for example turning into a liberal paradise


Canada is an example of what happens when you put liberals in charge.

- Harboring terrorists like the Tamil Tigers
- Poor healthcare system
- A horrible economy
- Shortage of Doctors
- Bribing members of the government
- Spending millions of Canadian taxpayers dollars for their rich lobby buddies (sponsership scandel)
- Proposing a bill that suggests that PARENTS are not suitable for raising their kids; the government should
- A laughable military

Canada City']Canada is an example of what happens when you put liberals in charge.

- Harboring terrorists like the Tamil Tigers
Canadians in Majority Urge Not to Outlaw Tamil Tigers (http://www.tamileelamnews.com/news/publish/tns_3959.shtml)

On Tuesday, Canadian Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew voiced against moves to proscribe the Tamil Tigers in Canada. Moving now to put the Tigers on Ottawa's proscribed list could disrupt delicate efforts to negotiate peace in Sri Lanka, Pettigrew said. "We believe it is better to try to work and engage them in a very fragile ceasefire, to strengthen it and maintain it," he said.

"We honestly believe at this time that it would not be useful to list the Tamil Tigers,” Mr. Pettigrew further said. He added that several countries including the United States and Norway - the latter deeply involved in mediation efforts in Sri Lanka - have asked Ottawa not to aggravate the situation by moving against the Tigers in Canada.

Canada City']
- Poor healthcare system
HEALTH CARE: A FIX FOR A GENERATION (http://www.cbcn.ca/english/advocacy.php?show&218)

"I challenged those advocating radical solutions for reforming health care - user fees, medical savings accounts, de-listing services, greater privatization, a parallel private system - to come forward with evidence that these approaches would improve and strengthen our health care system. The evidence has not been forthcoming... Canadians want their health care system renovated; they do not want it demolished."

Hon. Roy Romanow, Nov. 29, 2002

Health Care – A Better System for All Canadians (http://www.liberal.ca/issues_e.aspx?id=4)

The 2005 Liberal budget commits $41.3 billion in new federal funding over the next 10 years. The new funding increase will be part of the ongoing federal assistance provided through the Canada Health Transfer (CHT). The money will be specifically directed to reducing wait times to ensure Canadians have timely access to essential health care services; will invest in home care and diagnostic services as well as assist with further developing a human health resources strategy.

Even as it is right now, Canada doesn't have "poor" healthcare.

Canada City']
- A horrible economy

During the deficit years, long-term planning was all but impossible at the national level. That’s because the federal government was always concerned with the now -- with the urgent pressures, the need to borrow, the rapidly escalating interest payments. We didn’t just have deficits back then – we had a culture of deficit. Liberal government, Conservative government – it didn’t matter. Nothing ever changed.

We put an end to that. We balanced the books. Eight consecutive years in surplus now. Indeed, Canada is only member of the G-8 not in deficit. Think about that – the only one.........

Today, Canada’s economy and public finances are national strengths that increasingly set us apart. We have the best growth in living standards among the G-8. The fastest job growth. The only nation paying down debt. Low inflation. Low interest rates. Unemployment that’s 30 per cent lower than a decade ago. For Canadians, it’s easier to find a good job, buy a house, pay the bills.


Yup only country not in deficit in the G8 and actually paying down the debt. I guess our econmy sucks?

Canada City']
- Shortage of Doctors

Medical miscalculation creates doctor shortage (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm)

Retired fisherman Billy Bodiford was diagnosed with prostate cancer in October. The doctor who found the cancer is the only urologist available in Taylor County, Fla. (pop. 19,200) — and he visits just one day a month.

The doctor sent Bodiford from his hometown of Perry to Tallahassee 50 miles away for surgery. "You can't get the type of operation I needed in my town," says Bodiford, 68, who was hospitalized for six days in December and is feeling better.

Bodiford experienced what many Americans may soon face: a shortage of physicians that makes it hard to find convenient, quality health care. The shortage will worsen as 79 million baby boomers reach retirement age and demand more medical care unless the nation starts producing more doctors, according to several new studies.

Canada City']
- Bribing members of the government
Proof please.

Canada City']
- Spending millions of Canadian taxpayers dollars for their rich lobby buddies (sponsership scandel)
The Gomery Commission has not presented its' findings as yet. Let's wait and see what the final ruling is before getting out the broad paint brush?

Canada City']
- Proposing a bill that suggests that PARENTS are not suitable for raising their kids; the government should
Do you have more details please? A link would be helpful.

Canada City']
- A laughable military
Why does a peaceful nation such as Canada need a large military?

The word SHARIA means '' the path to the watering hole''. It is a mostly informal Islamic code based on Koran, adapted by most moslems in muslim countries .It deals with contract law banking, inheritance among other aspects . It decrees men& women dress modestly and advocates segregation of the sexes as well as the wearing of the veil. If you have heard of stoning and lashing for Adultery, cutting off of hands for theft...you are dealing with SHARIA. Currently about 50 countries of moslem population subscribe to SHARIA, but only Saudia Arabia enforces the serious Hadd offences, with Jordan ,Egypt,Lebanon, Syria,Pakistan, enforcing it to a lesser degree.www.nosharia.com/ let me know what you think.
I went to the web site that you linked, but could not find anything that supports your claim, which is:

"Ontario, the largest province in the country is seriously considering allowing Sharia".

Can you provide an "official" link that supports this claim?

Even as it is right now, Canada doesn't have "poor" healthcare.


Wait, this same healthcare system that the supreme court of canada said that paying for healthcare would be better then a free one since it would provide a quicker, much-needed service to desperate patients that can't wait around forever?

That isn't POOR to you?


Today, Canada’s economy and public finances are national strengths that increasingly set us apart. We have the best growth in living standards among the G-8. The fastest job growth. The only nation paying down debt. Low inflation. Low interest rates. Unemployment that’s 30 per cent lower than a decade ago. For Canadians, it’s easier to find a good job, buy a house, pay the bills.


Speaking from experience, it is NOT easier to get a job, buy a house, and pay the bills. I can't get a job around here despite that I am well above average in both past experiences and job achievements in the field that I apply for. If paying the bills is SO easy, why do some families have to rely on renting out basement apartments so they can pay the bills?

If finding a job is easy, I should've had a full time job by now. Not in Canada's economy.

For the shortage of doctors, it's true. Otherwise professors in medical schools and doctors wouldn't be saying it on television.


Proof please.


Belinda.


Do you have more details please? A link would be helpful.


They want to socialize childcare like they did with the healthcare. As you can tell, it won't end well.

They don't even know how much the program will cost. (http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=c763cac9-9080-4273-9836-2ea0a694f71b)


Why does a peaceful nation such as Canada need a large military?


This same peaceful nation that only sent 300 soldiers to Afgan? This same peaceful nation only did something "peaceful" in the 1950s for their middle east efforts?

I guess in order to be qualified as a peaceful nation, you need to do something once a century. We haven't done anything at all. If we were a truly peaceful nation, we would've helped out in Iraq.

The entire clash between " Conservatives" and "Liberals " is destroying America. Neither side is right anymore - it's just a load of propaganda on both sides and the interests of the American people have ceased to be of concern to either party. Both sides are a disgrace at this point.

One question for you then: Explain Communism, in as much detail as you wish to put in. I'm not asking for anything particularily lengthy or complicated, just a simple straightforward explanation. I have gotten the feeling that you don't know much about what you speak of due to your recent comments. You have claimed to know a bit about Communism... care to show me?

Oh, and grammar is your friend and mine.

Communism is the system of government and social organization devised by Karl Marx in the mid-1800's. It advocates the loss of private ownership of property in favor of a government run "communal" economy. It advocates the worker over the manager, and Marxists, when studying history see only the "eternal class conflict between the proletariat and the wealthy" (sometimes the wealthy are referred to as the landed gentry if you want to go back to pre-Marxist communism during the era surrounding the French Revolution). Socialism is both a predecessor, companion in time, and an outgrowth of communism, depending upon the time of history in which it is being studied, and the circumstances surrounding it. Communism advocates the destruction of Capitalism in all its various forms, believing that Capitalism creates a socioeconomic class structure which is unfair to the poor and especially the workers. Communism believes in standardizing and socializing all things, from media to electricity to farming. Taxation and income redistribution is high, since the aims of Communism is to bring all humanity, or at least all the citizens of the country which Communism resides in, to the same economic class, end class warfare, and make everyone equal in the eyes of the State and their peers.

Is that in-depth enough for you, or would you like me to go further, because if you wish, I shall.

Canada City']Wait, this same healthcare system that the supreme court of canada said that paying for healthcare would be better then a free one since it would provide a quicker, much-needed service to desperate patients that can't wait around forever?

That isn't POOR to you?
The supreme court said no such thing. The SC said that oulawing private healthcare is against the charter of rights in a closely called decision. They said nothing about the advantages of a private system.



Canada City']Speaking from experience, it is NOT easier to get a job, buy a house, and pay the bills. I can't get a job around here despite that I am well above average in both past experiences and job achievements in the field that I apply for. If paying the bills is SO easy, why do some families have to rely on renting out basement apartments so they can pay the bills?

If finding a job is easy, I should've had a full time job by now. Not in Canada's economy.

For the shortage of doctors, it's true. Otherwise professors in medical schools and doctors wouldn't be saying it on television.
Depends on what filed you studied, I guess. I may not be working in my field of study but I never had a problem finding employment. And I'm not talking Mc Donald's type of jobs either. So, from my personnal experience, you are wrong.



Canada City']Belinda.
She got bribed? I wa under the impression that she switched side on her own accord because of ideological differences.

Canada City']They want to socialize childcare like they did with the healthcare. As you can tell, it won't end well.
Seems to be working alright in Quebec...

Although there's a leap between your obejection to a nationalized childcare system and your allegations that "Proposing a bill that suggests that PARENTS are not suitable for raising their kids; the government should".

Canada City']This same peaceful nation that only sent 300 soldiers to Afgan? This same peaceful nation only did something "peaceful" in the 1950s for their middle east efforts?
The same peacefull country that is involved in numerous UN PEACEKEEPING missions and the same peacefull nation that will not participate in an illegal war for dubious reasons in accordance with the treaties he ratified. What's wrong with it?

I guess in order to be qualified as a peaceful nation, you need to do something once a century. We haven't done anything at all. If we were a truly peaceful nation, we would've helped out in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

The entire clash between " Conservatives" and "Liberals " is destroying America. Neither side is right anymore - it's just a load of propaganda on both sides and the interests of the American people have ceased to be of concern to either party. Both sides are a disgrace at this point.

Cheers to that!

Canada City']Wait, this same healthcare system that the supreme court of canada said that paying for healthcare would be better then a free one since it would provide a quicker, much-needed service to desperate patients that can't wait around forever?

That isn't POOR to you?
No, I don't think our healthcare system is "poor" by any standard. It may not be perfect, and I think it is better than the US healthcare system that eliminates 45 Million people from basic health care.

BTW, the Supreme Court ruling pertained to Quebec status and if you read the link I provided, it comments about that situation.

Canada City']Speaking from experience, it is NOT easier to get a job, buy a house, and pay the bills. I can't get a job around here despite that I am well above average in both past experiences and job achievements in the field that I apply for. If paying the bills is SO easy, why do some families have to rely on renting out basement apartments so they can pay the bills?
IF you can't get a job, that means the economy is doing well, either that or you are not willing to work for less money than you think you are worth?

The rest of your argument is a non starter.

Canada City']If finding a job is easy, I should've had a full time job by now. Not in Canada's economy.
Did you read the link I provided? Canada has one of the best economies in the G8. Our job creation over the past 5 years per capita has outstripped the US. BTW, there was a zero net gain of jobs in the US for the last 4 years under Bush.

Canada City']For the shortage of doctors, it's true. Otherwise professors in medical schools and doctors wouldn't be saying it on television.
Sure we have a shortage of doctors but so do other countries. Did you read the attached link?

Canada City']Belinda.
Belinda wanted to leave the Conservatives because she could no longer identify with their ideals. She approached the Liberals and they offered her a job, and that is good for the Liberals and good for the country. It is not illegal.

Canada City']They want to socialize childcare like they did with the healthcare. As you can tell, it won't end well.
Providing a national daycare program is not the same as the way you presented your argument. This initiative also helps create jobs, and that is a good thing?

Canada City']They don't even know how much the program will cost. (http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=c763cac9-9080-4273-9836-2ea0a694f71b)
The Liberals promised a daycare program and they have delivered. The funding will not be open ended.

Canada City']This same peaceful nation that only sent 300 soldiers to Afgan? This same peaceful nation only did something "peaceful" in the 1950s for their middle east efforts?
There were almost 2.000 Canadian troops sent to Afghanistan. Where are you getting your news from?

Canada City']I guess in order to be qualified as a peaceful nation, you need to do something once a century. We haven't done anything at all. If we were a truly peaceful nation, we would've helped out in Iraq.
Peace does not mean engaging in war. The war in Iraq was totally wrong and the vast majority of Canadians did not want to send troops there. I fully supported that decision.

BTW, the Canadians were strongly involved in the Boer War, WW1, WW2, Korean War, and Kosovo. What are you talking about once a century? Read some history, and you might have a better understanding?

She got bribed? I wa under the impression that she switched side on her own accord because of ideological differences.


She was runner up for the conservatives. Paul Martin gave her a seat in the cabinet and she switched.

Steven Harper knew about this ahead of time. Sorry, but it has nothing to do with 'ideological differences' but simply power. Great timing too since the non-confidence vote was coming up. I thought liberals are supposed to self-less heroes like Michael Moore...

I didn't say it was illegal BTW, but it is a bribe.


IF you can't get a job, that means the economy is doing well, either that or you are not willing to work for less money than you think you are worth?


How is it doing well when someone who has more experience in a field gets shafted over some illegal alien who can barely speak english?


Our job creation over the past 5 years per capita has outstripped the US. BTW, there was a zero net gain of jobs in the US for the last 4 years under Bush.


"Would you like fries with that?"


Providing a national daycare program is not the same as the way you presented your argument. This initiative also helps create jobs, and that is a good thing?


It might create jobs, but I can see a load of problems like what we have now in healthcare.

If they actually want people to have jobs, maybe they shouldn't be taxing everyone first. I don't see why I should be paying for someone else's healthcare or welfare. Conservatives understand this, Liberals don't.


Peace does not mean engaging in war. The war in Iraq was totally wrong and the vast majority of Canadians did not want to send troops there. I fully supported that decision.


You have to remember that these same Canadians think we should keep our corrupted government, have underfunded military, and thinks we shouldn't be carrying guns.

Just the fact that we harbor terrorists like the Tamil Tigers so Paul Martin gets more liberal votes annoy me.

Stephen Harper might not be the most charismatic leader, but at least he knows what the hell do with this country. Paul Martin is reverse.

Do you still believe Paul Martin has the "Moral Authority" to lead our country?

Funny thing is, i did. And look what it found!

No entries found for conservitive

It's easier to find stuff on dictionary.com if you get the spelling right ...

Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

I think i gave the impression that i approve of liberalism, i most certaintly don't. Multiculturalism is a sacred cow here in Canada and like most sacred cows it deserves to be hamburger :mad: Sure, equal rights for everybody but when Ontario, the largest province in the country is seriously considering allowing Sharia, a muslim form of law, i say we are going too far. Importing culture yes, importing laws, no.

But Sharia isn't multicultural. Sharia is an exclusive religous law. In a multicultural society the only place for strictly religous law is allowing religions to establish grounds for terminating membership.

It's like how here in the States we've got people saying that the government doesn't have a right to dictate to churches what constitutes a marriage. But it's the other way around. If gay marriage is made legal, then churches are still free to say "we will not recognize any such union," just like the Catholic Church won't recognize marriage between two divorced people . According to Catholic religous law you can't get a divorce, so you can't remarry. The government doesn't recognize such law.

It's the same thing with Sharia. You don't actually mean to suggest that Canada is thinking of stoning people to death for adultery, or making it so that a woman can be legally raped if she rejects a man's advances are you?

Well, perhaps if America had dedicated itself to things other than the propogation of the consumer society you wouldn't be in that bind.

I'm getting a sense from your rambling piece that you feel America is owed something...?

Not at all... the trade deficiet is an investment for everyone. You clearly miss the point, America in not in a bind... our economy is strong... however if our economy goes bad The EU will be hurt severely... that excess money we spend in the EU... goes away... but that will help lessen a down turn for America because that money will stay here. You assume that the empolyee depending on an employer for income is in a better position to ride out a down sizing that the employer. Not wise..
The EU ecomony is 56% of the US economy per capita. China's economy is 20% of the US economy per capita... so the potential for growth is there, and the investment is the potential of 1.3 billion new customers.

Poor people make poor customers.

The entire clash between " Conservatives" and "Liberals " is destroying America. Neither side is right anymore - it's just a load of propaganda on both sides and the interests of the American people have ceased to be of concern to either party. Both sides are a disgrace at this point.

Of course it's all a load of propaganda. That's all people vote for. There is of course the matter of the preferable evil lurking behind the propaganda. Would you rather vote for the people who are beholden to the tobacco companies, the drug companies, the oil companies, and millionaires in general, or would you rather vote for the people who are beholden to labor unions, environmental groups, and humanitarian and civil liberties groups? Not that this is can be determined purly by party lines (the Joes Lieberman and Biden). But it's a good place to start.

In a democracy is that people get the government they deserve. -Adlai Stevenson

The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit. -Maugham

What liberal policies are you referring to here? This is just a mass of rambling thoughts.

So far everything you don't agree with is a mass of rambling thoughts.. Your expression of whats going on in your mind, is not my problem. But before you continue to be an ass.. perhaps you should consider that its your inability to think beyond your narrow understanding of whats happening around you that makes things appear to be rambling. Just a thought.. so far you have offered nothing to challange what I posted other than a empty rhetoric.

What liberal policies are you referring to here? This is just a mass of rambling thoughts.
How about giving people money with no requirements to have them learn to help themselves when possible.

I went to the web site that you linked, but could not find anything that supports your claim, which is:

"Ontario, the largest province in the country is seriously considering allowing Sharia".

Can you provide an "official" link that supports this claim?

I haven't been able to find anything from government sites; my guess is that, knowing how controversial this whole thing is, they want to bury it quickly.

Time Canada did a front-page article on it in 2004 or 2003, which I haven't had any luck locating either, thanks to Time's useless site.

However, I did find articles at both Slate magazine and the Christian Science Monitor after I googled "sharia Canada."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0810/p01s03-woam.html

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106547/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3599264.stm

Canada City']She was runner up for the conservatives. Paul Martin gave her a seat in the cabinet and she switched.

Steven Harper knew about this ahead of time. Sorry, but it has nothing to do with 'ideological differences' but simply power. Great timing too since the non-confidence vote was coming up. I thought liberals are supposed to self-less heroes like Michael Moore...

I didn't say it was illegal BTW, but it is a bribe.
Seeing as bribes for votes are illegal, you can understand why we disagreed. And if you think the average liberal is Michael Moore, then we definitively have a problem with the definition of liberal.


Canada City']How is it doing well when someone who has more experience in a field gets shafted over some illegal alien who can barely speak english?
Seeing as Canada is bilingual, I ee no problem with that. In fact, talking english only is a good way to be excluded from certain jobs. And how do you know you have more experience than that immigrant? He may have been a doctor where he comes from.


Canada City']It might create jobs, but I can see a load of problems like what we have now in healthcare.
So do I. But that doesn't mean that the government no longer trusts the parents with their kid like you said.

Canada City']If they actually want people to have jobs, maybe they shouldn't be taxing everyone first. I don't see why I should be paying for someone else's healthcare or welfare. Conservatives understand this, Liberals don't.
I don't see why I have to pay for the construction of roads in Alberta. Do you advocate that roads shouldn't be buit? That's not the system works. You don't pay for other people's health care. Think of it like paying an insurance premium for health coverage. It just happens that the government is the insurer.
As a society, we decided that healthcare and welfare was the best thing to do. You don't like it? Then, by all means, protest and be active in politics.


Canada City']You have to remember that these same Canadians think we should keep our corrupted government, have underfunded military, and thinks we shouldn't be carrying guns.
Bullsh*t! We just think that the conservative will be worse for our country with their privatisation, denial of civil liberties to gays and the return of the deficit.

Canada City']Just the fact that we harbor terrorists like the Tamil Tigers so Paul Martin gets more liberal votes annoy me.
Didn't you read the article that CanuckHeaven posted?

Canada City']Stephen Harper might not be the most charismatic leader, but at least he knows what the hell do with this country. Paul Martin is reverse.
Listen if you think that we voted for Paul Martin because he's charismatic, I've got news for you... If that were true, Jean Chretien would have never become prime minister. We vote for the party before voting for the man, usually.

Canada City']Do you still believe Paul Martin has the "Moral Authority" to lead our country?
That's irrelevant as the public has spoken during the last elections.

I haven't been able to find anything from government sites; my guess is that, knowing how controversial this whole thing is, they want to bury it quickly.

Time Canada did a front-page article on it in 2004 or 2003, which I haven't had any luck locating either, thanks to Time's useless site.

However, I did find articles at both Slate magazine and the Christian Science Monitor after I googled "sharia Canada."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0810/p01s03-woam.html

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106547/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3599264.stm
You are talking about mediation based on the Sharia. In ontario, there is a movement who want this to happen. It is not making the Sharia into law. It's using the sharia to resolve a dispute, like a divorce.

It must be noted that both parties have to agree with this. That any party who disagree with the decision can appeal it in court. That some mediation practice like the one proposed already exist for Jewish and Christian faith. And, finally, that it has been met by stiff opposition both in the community and the ontario government.

Looks like you guys need a few things defined:

Conservative (Big C) - 1. A moderate to extreme authoritarian who follows right-wing economic policies 2. A political party in various countries

Liberal (Big L) - 1. A moderate to extreme libertarian who follows left-wing economic policies 2. A political in various countries

conservative (Little c) - 1. Believes in the policies of small government and increased liberties 2. a subscriber to right-wing economics

liberal (Little l) - 1. Believes in big government (but not necessarily decreased liberties) 2. a subscriber to left-wing economics

Sorry, but they are all big C and Big L you used the terms as nouns.. I specificly used the term as adjective... why? because adjective describes the noun. Without that discription... you say nothing.

I may want to save the world... but if I kill everyone but 2 people... who's world did I save?

I may not want to save the world... but if I come up with a system where everyone survives... I have saved the world, even though it was not my goal.

Liberals... want to save the world.. but they refuse to address the how part. They refuse to look at the adjective in denial and say ... but this is not what I want.... OK fine.. its not what you WANT... but its what you ARE... reguardless of what you WANT. The responce is... yea soooo what its not what I WANT... and thats what is important.

Like a child... tell them no... then they go oppss... and you say... I told you know... they say... I didn't mean it to happen... uh... reguardless of what you meant... its a fact that its going to happen, which is why I said NO. Children are liberal in thinking. Its not bad.. its actually beautiful... providing you don't let them make the rules. Rules must deal with What IS and WILL be... and not WANT... tolerance deals with WANT... and the OPPS ... and the I didn't mean it to happen. The laws are the base line... the foundation...laws that do have grey areas... those grey areas are the tolerance... the opps... the i am sorry..

You cannot say that deep down everyone knows that homosexuality is wrong and that homosexuals and their supporters are creating a "perverted mob", and then say that you are not paranoid and repulsed by homosexuality. Face it, you are a homophobe.

Not everyone knows it deep down, to think he said that is laughable. Now he could have said, "most people deep down know", Because all is not believable.
Calling Homosexual and supporters perverted is a weird though...
Well, he is a rude man who believes that homosexuality is wrong. That does not mean he is a homophobe.

What tells you he is paranoid?
And remember Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Protestants are christians, and christians fit into what I said. Christian followers have morals, Islamic followers have morals, atheists have morals. That is a liberal point of view. The attempt to separate people and have separate treatment of people based on their religion is a traditionalist and fundamentalist point of view.

Well to be fair, Catholics and Protestants are nothing alike usually. True everyone in general has morals. But groups in each religion have low amounts of morals such as your Osamas(Islam), Saddam (Athiest), and Bush (Baptist). I apologize if calling Bush on on his morals was wrong lol

Second, you have shown by rattling off several stereotypes about liberals (liberals are out to destroy religion, liberals think men are sexist and whites are racist) that you are biased against liberals.

Yeah I bet he is Biased. But than again, us liberals could be biased against republicans (notice not conservatives, few exist I fear left, most are neo-cons that call themselves cons).

Third, that quote was by Voltaire (EDIT: It is a paraphrase of Voltaire, actually), who along with John Locke were two of the first liberals. They were two of the most important components of the Enlightenment which spawned the Liberal movement.

Yep, funny Conservatives praise founders of new liberal movement. But now condemn their groups.

Fifth, your opinion on the rights of homosexuals show that you are only taking the freedom ideas of Voltaire and Locke in a half-assed manner. You are very inconsistent in what freedoms you choose to defend.

To be fair, some people think the ends justify the means. So we can't believe everyone is logical.

Sixth, the system that has worked for 200 years is democracy, and is rooted in dissent and change. Our government was founded on much of the ideas of Locke, in that all people deserve equal rights and opportunities. What you are proposing, like all the other people whose traditionalist ideas have come and gone, is a hinderance of the system that has worked so well for 200 years.

Nope not in America. America we have a Representative Republic. We used to have democracy I think when we voted in washington.

But after that when the Electoral College was created we shifted. That small bif of lost freedom has permentaly for now curropted us from being considered a democracy.

Sometimes makes me wonder why we call ourselves a Democracy when we aren't!

Liberalism is a very odd concept, and thanks for the definitions Chaos Experiment ;) . First of all, too much liberalism can cause an anarchy because of the freedom, however, way too much conservative-ness results in a dictatorship. That of course would be a liberal interpritation. Like a child saying their parents are a dictatorship... but when they become the parent... they now see the other side.

Once again... conservitive by the book is moderation.. tendacy to resist change. supportive of traditional values. Only liberals actions can change tendacy to resist to absloute.. Two very complete meanings and out comes. Only a Liberal translation or action can pervert tradition into dictated or forced. Sorry.. but that behavior only comes from a specific type of behavior.

You are talking about mediation based on the Sharia. In ontario, there is a movement who want this to happen. It is not making the Sharia into law. It's using the sharia to resolve a dispute, like a divorce.

It must be noted that both parties have to agree with this. That any party who disagree with the decision can appeal it in court. That some mediation practice like the one proposed already exist for Jewish and Christian faith. And, finally, that it has been met by stiff opposition both in the community and the ontario government.

Indeed, I'm not talking about making sharia the official law of the land, and I don't know whether that first guy was or not.

However, I don't think that this is right. Why should Canadian courts be obliged to enforce the decisions at which these sharia mediators arrive? Since the official mechanisms of the Ontario government would be pressed in to service to enforce these decisions, it can be seen as de facto incorporating sharia into official law, since separation of church and state is no longer maintained.

While we're at it, the similar systems put in place for Christians and Jews should be repealed as well.

Nope not in America. America we have a Representative Republic. We used to have democracy I think when we voted in washington.

But after that when the Electoral College was created we shifted. That small bif of lost freedom has permentaly for now curropted us from being considered a democracy.

Sometimes makes me wonder why we call ourselves a Democracy when we aren't!

Do you vote in America? Then you're a democracy.

Seeing as Canada is bilingual, I ee no problem with that. In fact, talking english only is a good way to be excluded from certain jobs. And how do you know you have more experience than that immigrant? He may have been a doctor where he comes from.

But if the job is working exclusively with English-speakers ...

Canada is bilingual with French and English only. Very few immigrants arrive here speaking French. The chances that this guy was from China, or Pakistan, or from Kenya? High.

Do you vote in America? Then you're a democracy.
Nice try. We don't vote for President. We vote for the guy who will vote for President. Not always following our votes either.

Say 90% of a state votes for Candidate A.

The Electoral votes might all go for candidate B if they feel like it.

Our votes didn't count than.

So we aren't a democracy.

We are Representatice Republic. Oh I wish we were a Democracy. Such freedom and joy that would be.

But Sharia isn't multicultural. Sharia is an exclusive religous law. In a multicultural society the only place for strictly religous law is allowing religions to establish grounds for terminating membership.

It's like how here in the States we've got people saying that the government doesn't have a right to dictate to churches what constitutes a marriage. But it's the other way around. If gay marriage is made legal, then churches are still free to say "we will not recognize any such union," just like the Catholic Church won't recognize marriage between two divorced people . According to Catholic religous law you can't get a divorce, so you can't remarry. The government doesn't recognize such law.

It's the same thing with Sharia. You don't actually mean to suggest that Canada is thinking of stoning people to death for adultery, or making it so that a woman can be legally raped if she rejects a man's advances are you?
No, of course not, from what i been able to research so far is that there is fear that if entrenched in Canadian Law,Sharia will not protect the rights of muslim women in divorce and custody cases, and because it could override Canadian Law. Admittedly ,The Ontario Arbitration Act already allows for other religions to step out of the court system and any resistance to Sharia will raise cries of unfairness. Also two factors are going to lean towards a Sharia system in Canada,a} the rapidly increasing moslem population in this country, that will in time make for greater political leverage in government,2} The over burdening of the court system now and in the future will make it seem, to the government, like an easy way for them to lessen that burden. My question is why do we need another level of law? People who come to any country becoming citizens of said country, agree to abide by its' laws. Why should Canada be any different?

But if the job is working exclusively with English-speakers ...

Canada is bilingual with French and English only. Very few immigrants arrive here speaking French. The chances that this guy was from China, or Pakistan, or from Kenya? High.

That's not actually true. There is a lot of immigration to Quebec which is francophone: this is evident in the large Haitian community. However, if you live outside Quebec it is true that you will see little Francophone immigration (but this is through obvious reasons of self-selection: clearly if you speak only French you will be more comfortable/successful in Quebec as opposed to Alberta).

Why should Canadian courts be obliged to enforce the decisions at which these sharia mediators arrive?

Because Sharia courts must be agreed to by both parties, as I understand it. If the woman does not believe she will be fairly arbitrated, then she is under no legal obligation to use that system at all. However, once she agrees to it, it is essentially binding arbitration- she has contractually agreed to abide to its desicion.

However, I think on the whole Sharia courts are a negative developement in Canada, which only serve to escalate existing cleavages. This kind of institution will not help us form a cooperative political venture, nor will it help immigrants integrate into our value system.

I went to the web site that you linked, but could not find anything that supports your claim, which is:

"Ontario, the largest province in the country is seriously considering allowing Sharia".

Can you provide an "official" link that supports this claim?
http://www.atorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca Follow the link to Sharia .Also you might look at a June8/2005 article in The Toronto Star by Carol Goarhttp://www.thestar.com Hope this helps.

Nice try. We don't vote for President. We vote for the guy who will vote for President. Not always following our votes either.

Say 90% of a state votes for Candidate A.

The Electoral votes might all go for candidate B if they feel like it.

Our votes didn't count than.

So we aren't a democracy.

We are Representatice Republic. Oh I wish we were a Democracy. Such freedom and joy that would be.

But you vote for your Representatives and Senators. You're an indirect democracy. Heck, in the US you crazy bastards even vote for judges and DAs.

Because Sharia courts must be agreed to by both parties, as I understand it. If the woman does not believe she will be fairly arbitrated, then she is under no legal obligation to use that system at all. However, once she agrees to it, it is essentially binding arbitration- she has contractually agreed to abide to its desicion.

However, I think on the whole Sharia courts are a negative developement in Canada, which only serve to escalate existing cleavages. This kind of institution will not help us form a cooperative political venture, nor will it help immigrants integrate into our value system.

Well-put. Heh, "cleavages." Heh.

I don't know about you, but I worry about the supposed safeguard that these arbitrations must be consensual. Muslim women are coerced often into things they didn't want to do, such as arranged marriages. I bet a lot of them will find themselves pressured to submit their cases to these sharia tribunals instead of resorting to the Canadian legal system.

Third, they have no idea what liberalism is and they automatically associated it to communism. I bet you that they dont know what communism is as well. If they had taken World History as a class, they would no that socialism and Marxism are the closest things to communism.

In other words, everyone ignore them, they are both fools.
Ah little dictator... is that a command?

First, I specifically used the terms as and adjective... even explained why... but appears your to shallow to even consider the facts. I specificly presented this adjective as a pattern of behavior... and you feel offended by it... Sorry, take your beef up with the Dictionary...I don't care what you call this pattern of behavior... but the facts are... this specific pattern of behavior creates most of the problems and most of the wars.. most of the crime when this pattern of behavior makes laws. All this is not even debateable..... what you have a problem with is that the dictionary calls it this pattern, liberal... Because you refuse to look at the whole ... and narrowally focus on the part... Blind lust to be a viewed as a giver... usually creates the opposite effect. As you said... man is not perfect... thus to attempt to embrace a behavior pattern that requires man to be perfect... is irresponcible. So it is... you shall like for 1,000's of years be a part of the problem... because like for 1,000's of years... you say... this time "I" can get it right.. and denial is your friend.

Well-put. Heh, "cleavages." Heh.

I don't know about you, but I worry about the supposed safeguard that these arbitrations must be consensual. Muslim women are coerced often into things they didn't want to do, such as arranged marriages. I bet a lot of them will find themselves pressured to submit their cases to these sharia tribunals instead of resorting to the Canadian legal system.

I certainly agree. This is the difference between 'opportunity freedom' and 'exercise freedom'. While Muslim women will have the opportunity to reject shariah courts (they certainly have the legal right to do so: opportunity freedom means: an agent is free from human obstruction to do a given thing) they may not have the opportunity to exercise this freedom, due to social pressure and internal restrictions (they may feel they cannot ethically do so). I don't think Shariah really has a place in our society, given our value system. Shariah courts actually seem to reduce individual freedom, while conversely they do increase community/group freedom.

I'm sorry? What? Do you actually know anything at all about your country's history or about world history? What kind of lunatic "Uncle Sam's Guide to why the US Rocks and Everyone Else Sucks" book did you get that one from?

None, but here is the deal.

Take the elite out of world History and the glory is gone... whats left is the oppressed, the starving, the enslaved, the butchered. Most of the worlds History is about the royalty, the nobels, and the ruling class.

Take it out of American History... and guess what...we still have American History... the majority of our History is about common people... 3% of the world are the elite... less 4% of American population, that means 93% of the world is ignored.

This is slowly changing with capitalism... capitalism is the only system that gets stronger when common people have money.. Poor people make poor customers.. and a real capitalist knows this. Only poor people need the government to take care of them... so the incentive for government is to keep people poor, if they do not adopt capitalism.

its not a perfect system.. but its the only system that allows people to remove super corrupt people without the common people going to war. Capitalism is a steel ball on top of a pressure cooker... other systems weld the lid shut... and the only way to release steam is to blow the pot up.

Funny thing is, i did. And look what it found!


How about you be a bit more conservative with the written word, so that i might actually have a slight chance of grasping what you try to get at? If children like you make up their rules for semantics, the language will be destroyed.

To bad intelligence is not based on ones ability to follow instructions. I sign says turn here for Hwy 5... and a ditch is there... hwy 5 is 50 ft away... you drive into the ditch and blame the sign... because you think your smart.. ok lap dog... look up conservative... not that you will be able to comprehend the meaning. But your behavior is true to the pattern, claiming to be intelligent, yet not smart enough to solve a problem.

Nice job. :) again you show why Liberals should not make law... you clearly have no vision, like a moron... you stood there with your thumb up your rear... with no clue on what to do next. DOH... it aint there in the book... what do I do.... duh huh.. duh huh...

I think illiteracy is destroying America. As evidenced by the first post on this thread.

First of all, NAS Rebels made a very stupid blunder in the title "Is Liberalism IS destroying america". By adding in an unnecessary "is" into the title, he just proved that all he says is no longer credible due to his stupidity. really? a mistake is made... most likely the title was Liberalism IS Destroying America... then as an after thought, he decided to make it a question instead of a statement. But being anal, and self proclaimed intelligent... you do not have the capacity to understand what someone is trying to say. Yet you wish to appear being literate and intelligent. Perhaps to other liberals.. (that’s little l adjective) you appear to come across as intelligent. However in America, you will find that the silent majority is conservative... that peaceful nations the majority is inherently conservative. That tyranny is inherently liberal...<------ adjective.

I watch the news every day, and I see the latest stupidity of the Left in America, and political correctness runs rampent every day. Granted, there was a time when it was good to be liberal, but that was mid to late 18th centuary during the Guilded Age in America.


If it's so fucking bad now, why was it so fucking good then? Either you believe in such "liberal" ideas as social equality or you don't. But that certainly isn't something that should be "stylish" according to period.

However, it is destroying our national identity.

Really? How? Are they trying to make you become a beacon of freedom and equality in a cruel hard world or some such shit like that? Man, would that suck!

Liberals want to allow illegales to have the same rights as natural born Americans,

Yeah, like that dickhead that was talking about allowing illegals to register and get benefits etc for a while as they get processed through the system. What was that dorks name again? Geoff Tree? Gerry Shrub? Oh right - George Bush. Fucking liberal!

and they outlaw as much religion as they can.


Bullshit. They ask that religion not be mixed with government. Yes some dickheads on the left go so far, but so do some asshats on the right who want the supreme court to be guided by the Bible BEFORE the Constitution.


They say they support freedom of speech, but when someone who they disagree with speaks they silence them by calling them racist, sxist, ageist, etc.,

Right, EVERYONE on the left generalizes and marginalizes. NOBODY on the right does that. And there are no racists, sexists, or anything like that either. Take the Klan. A myth. Never existed.

or they throw pie at them as they did to Ann Coulter during one of her speeches.


On this I am in total agreement that the asshats that stooped to such a juvenile display as to pie a woman who says such innocuous things as "all liberals are traiters who should be rounded up and shot" did absolutely nothing except make the whole left look bad, and give that nasty bitch the gift of getting to pretend that she's some kind of a victim.

Wow, so there are idiots on the left. Again, gee - now THAT'S a unique idea, that every ideology has their idiot fringes.... in rebuttal can we all spell Phelps and pretend that everyone on the right is in his corner as some sort of cosmic fucking counterbalance? Would that be reasonable?

Am I the only one on these forums who think liberalism has finished its usefulness in the world and is destroying America, and thus needs to be discarded before it completly destroys us? And what do you think should take its place if you do?


No you are not. However you should take a moment at least and thank your lucky fucking stars for the liberals inthe past. They MADE your country with that rediculous left-wing fucking idea that instead of being under the thumb of an absent monarch that each of them truly deserved to have a say in the business of forming and running yuor country. Radical fucking shit back then. And you should thank liberal ideas for the fact that half of your country is not still in chains, and that you actually have rights as a worker.


Any schmuck can point to the extremes and go "That's fucking idiotic". That's too goddamn easy from any side of the ideological table. But you might just want to step back from the petty partisan labels and look at each new idea that pops up in politics individually and on it's own merits instead of concerning yourself primarily with what perfect little buttonhole you have put the author of that idea in. boy, what a liberal notion that is..... treating everyone as equals and judging them on their own merits.



Nahhhhh, that could never fucking work.

No, of course not, from what i been able to research so far is that there is fear that if entrenched in Canadian Law,Sharia will not protect the rights of muslim women in divorce and custody cases, and because it could override Canadian Law.
I'm going to stop you right there. Any arbitration process cannot, and I repeat, cannot override Canadian Law. There's no ifs or buts. It is a mechanism that interpret religious doctrines within the context of ontario laws.

Also, I'd like to note that a majority of the immigrant are leaving behind strict interpretation of Sharia law. Many muslim have a vastly different interpretation of their religious laws than those you can find in, say, Saudi Arabia.

Canada City']Canada is an example of what happens when you put liberals in charge.

- Harboring terrorists like the Tamil Tigers
- Poor healthcare system
- A horrible economy
- Shortage of Doctors
- Bribing members of the government
- Spending millions of Canadian taxpayers dollars for their rich lobby buddies (sponsership scandel)
- Proposing a bill that suggests that PARENTS are not suitable for raising their kids; the government should
- A laughable military

Look at America-

-We don't harbor terrorists, we create a massive propaganda machine for the various groups. Bush has done more for terrorism that Bin Laden could ever dream to do
-Extremely poor healthcare system. Seriously, I'm not joking. The US is Ranked in the mid 30's for countries with best healthcare-and number one for most expensive. Something is definately wrong with this system.
-A LAUGHABLE economy. Believe it or not, the American Economy is dropping, and the value of the American Dollar is dropping extremely quickly. Look at the Euro, last year it was worth about 80 cents to the dollar, now it's worth about 1.40. The same holds true to pretty much every other currency. Not to mention the fact that we have an ever increasing debt, and the administration has an absolutely STUPID method of fixing it. Yeah, the American economy is BRILLIANT.
-Shortage of Doctors, once again because of the system we have. Hospitals are closing everywhere, why would anyone want to become a doctor, when your job is not secure?
-Do not even get me started on the Bribing of members of the Government.
-Once again, taxpayer dollars are being wasted on lobbyists. Same here as there
-A Government telling people what is right or wrong, or moral or immoral
-A military, although strong, is quite corrupt(Cheney+Haliburton=Hairy Fish)

Wanna know what happens when you put Liberals in charge? Look at Norway:

-Highest Standard of Living in the world
-Highest average wages in the world
-One of the Best Healthcare Systems in the world
-One of teh best educatino systems in the world

Huh... Blows your theory clear out of the water, doesn't it.

-Highest Standard of Living in the world
-Highest average wages in the world
-One of the Best Healthcare Systems in the world
-One of teh best educatino systems in the world

Huh... Blows your theory clear out of the water, doesn't it.


Proof? Because I live in a liberal nation and we aren't getting any of those.

Everyone in america except, for the native americans (indians), is an immigrant or is the decedent of one. America has always been called "The melting pot" because of the diverse mix of races we have. I believe that in governments eyes their is no need to further classify people past american citizens. What is liberal is also very subjective. The news station that I believe is independent is CNN. There are news stations like fox news who tend to be conservative. For local news stations their objective is to get viewers if more people in the state go to the left, their news station will be more to the left. Its all money and profit for them.

Look at America-

-We don't harbor terrorists, we create a massive propaganda machine for the various groups. Bush has done more for terrorism that Bin Laden could ever dream to do
-Extremely poor healthcare system. Seriously, I'm not joking. The US is Ranked in the mid 30's for countries with best healthcare-and number one for most expensive. Something is definately wrong with this system.
-A LAUGHABLE economy. Believe it or not, the American Economy is dropping, and the value of the American Dollar is dropping extremely quickly. Look at the Euro, last year it was worth about 80 cents to the dollar, now it's worth about 1.40. The same holds true to pretty much every other currency. Not to mention the fact that we have an ever increasing debt, and the administration has an absolutely STUPID method of fixing it. Yeah, the American economy is BRILLIANT.
-Shortage of Doctors, once again because of the system we have. Hospitals are closing everywhere, why would anyone want to become a doctor, when your job is not secure?
-Do not even get me started on the Bribing of members of the Government.
-Once again, taxpayer dollars are being wasted on lobbyists. Same here as there
-A Government telling people what is right or wrong, or moral or immoral
-A military, although strong, is quite corrupt(Cheney+Haliburton=Hairy Fish)

Wanna know what happens when you put Liberals in charge? Look at Norway:

-Highest Standard of Living in the world
-Highest average wages in the world
-One of the Best Healthcare Systems in the world
-One of teh best educatino systems in the world

Huh... Blows your theory clear out of the water, doesn't it.

There is no such thing as canada.

There is no such thing as canada.
Well, you had me fooled!

Question: where the hell do I live?

If it's so ing bad now, why was it so ing good then? Either you believe in such "liberal" ideas as social equality or you don't. But that certainly isn't something that should be "stylish" according to period.



Really? How? Are they trying to make you become a beacon of freedom and equality in a cruel hard world or some such like that? Man, would that suck!



Yeah, like that dickhead that was talking about allowing illegals to register and get benefits etc for a while as they get processed through the system. What was that dorks name again? Geoff Tree? Gerry Shrub? Oh right - George Bush. ing liberal!



. They ask that religion not be mixed with government. Yes some dickheads on the left go so far, but so do some asshats on the right who want the supreme court to be guided by the Bible BEFORE the Constitution.



Right, EVERYONE on the left generalizes and marginalizes. NOBODY on the right does that. And there are no racists, ists, or anything like that either. Take the Klan. A myth. Never existed.



On this I am in total agreement that the asshats that stooped to such a juvenile display as to pie a woman who says such innocuous things as "all liberals are traiters who should be rounded up and shot" did absolutely nothing except make the whole left look bad, and give that the gift of getting to pretend that she's some kind of a victim.

Wow, so there are idiots on the left. Again, gee - now THAT'S a unique idea, that every ideology has their idiot fringes.... in rebuttal can we all spell Phelps and pretend that everyone on the right is in his corner as some sort of cosmic ing counterbalance? Would that be reasonable?



No you are not. However you should take a moment at least and thank your lucky ing stars for the liberals inthe past. They MADE your country with that rediculous left-wing ing idea that instead of being under the thumb of an absent monarch that each of them truly deserved to have a say in the business of forming and running yuor country. Radical ing back then. And you should thank liberal ideas for the fact that half of your country is not still in chains, and that you actually have rights as a worker.


Any schmuck can point to the extremes and go "That's ing idiotic". That's too god easy from any side of the ideological table. But you might just want to step back from the petty partisan labels and look at each new idea that pops up in politics individually and on it's own merits instead of concerning yourself primarily with what perfect little buttonhole you have put the author of that idea in. boy, what a liberal notion that is..... treating everyone as equals and judging them on their own merits.



Nahhhhh, that could never ing work.

Alright, first of all cursing your head off doesn't make you look cool, nor does it add credibility to you, nor does it make people want to listen to you. Rather, people see your foul language and take you for a wacko who cannot have a intelligent debate without spouting off your mouth with curses.

Secondly, your first "critisism" of me is idiotic, and if you read the entire thread this has already been brought up. Liberalism in the Gilded Age was an outgrowth of the Liberalism started by the French Revolution and the Enlightenment. The Liberalism now is an offspring of the Progressive movement and F.D.R.'s New Deal. Get your facts straight.

Your third comment makes no sense. "beacon of freedom"? where does that come into play?

Forth, not everyone, not even *gasp* the President has to toe the party line. Look at Woodrow Wilson, he didn't toe the party lie, but instead started major reforms. Enough said about that paragraph, moving on.

Fifth, only Bible thompers ask for the Bible to come BEFORE the Constitution, and not the entire Right wing agrees with them, certainly I do not. Most people on the Right believe that it should be used in tandum with the Constitution, not without it, to govern America.

Sixth, three words: ACLU and NAACP and NOW. Yes, the Right has their radicals, but so do the Left, and unlike the Left, the Right's extremists don't control the media and the judicial system.

Seventh, the Founding Fathers were actually conservatives with some liberal views. They did not believe in pure democracy because they, as aristocrats, feared the mob, so they combined liberal and conservative positions when forming this nation.

Eighth, your last paragraph not only makes little to no sense, it has no place in this argument.

So, in conclusion, stop cursing, get your facts straight and have a resonable discussion or get out.

Wanna know what happens when you put Liberals in charge? Look at Norway:

-Highest Standard of Living in the world
-Highest average wages in the world
-One of the Best Healthcare Systems in the world
-One of teh best educatino systems in the world

Huh... Blows your theory clear out of the water, doesn't it.

Luxembourg $48309.28 per person
2. United States $35991.96 per person
3. Bermuda $34893.45 per person
4. San Marino $33429.35 per person
5. Norway $32797.17 per person

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_cap

exports per GDP
Norway $45 per $100
United States $6.57 per $100

Oil production
Map & Graph: Energy: Oil production (Top 50 Countries)
View this stat: Per capita Show map full screen

Country Description


1. Saudi Arabia 8,680 thousand barrels / day
2. United States 7,698 thousand barrels / day

7. Norway 3,330 thousand barrels / day

population 4,500,000 thats about .75 barrels per person per day or or about $11,950 per person at old oil prices of $40 a barrel. To make them apples and apples... the US would need to generate 4.7 trillion in revenue on oil exports. But then when your oil rich and you don't have to produce anything.. just get it out of the ground and ship it.. it sure helps your economy... but then... when it dries up... well... what ya going to do?

Hope that helps spell out reality a little. It is hardly anything we can learn from their system. Unless we can start producing 300 million barrels of oil a day, or 42 times the amount we produce today. even then... if we did.. ... who would buy it? that would drop the price of oil to $5 bucks a barrel... and norway would tank. Smoke n Mirrors don't make a good economy.

Canada City']Proof? Because I live in a liberal nation and we aren't getting any of those.

Sure. Oy, and I meant to say "One of the Highest" for education, wages, and healthcare... oh well, doesn't change much.

Standard of Living:

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html

Health care:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/001819.html
gives a little insight on the poor state of American healthcare, and
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
Shows the countrie's healtcare, go to page 4. Oh, and I meant to say "One of the Highest" with the US being very low on the list. Norway is ranked 11th. Which ain't to shabby.

It's almost impossible to find anything on education, but I'll keep looking. When I find it, I'll post it. I can't seem to find the report on it at the moment.

And, wages:


http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm

I can find more, if you want.

I hate to say it, I really do, but in my personal opinion, risking offending a lot of people, much of the American left is a joke. The Democratic party is hardly "leftist" in any real sense of the word. The fact that you think it's so left wing says more about you than about the DP. If you want to attack leftists, you're going about it the wrong way if you include the Democrat party.

The claim that American "leftists" are trying to ban religion is ludicrous, to say the least. In case you haven't noticed, this is a nation where 85% of the people are Christians. The American "left" makes up around 49% of the population. Obviously, the "left" can't be primarily opposed to religion. As for Coulter, a pie in the face is nothing compared to being hanged for being connected to the Haymaker riots.

Canada City']Canada is an example of what happens when you put liberals in charge.

- Harboring terrorists like the Tamil Tigers
- Poor healthcare system
- A horrible economy
- Shortage of Doctors
- Bribing members of the government
- Spending millions of Canadian taxpayers dollars for their rich lobby buddies (sponsership scandel)
- Proposing a bill that suggests that PARENTS are not suitable for raising their kids; the government should
- A laughable military
That is interesting. And it does sound pretty bad. But compared to America which is run by conservatives. Canada sounds pretty good.
-No Child Left Behind punishes schools with below average test scores by cutting funding. (you would seriously think they would raise funding to try and help them but no)
-Patriot Act limits our rights even further, government now has access to private information on every citizen in our country.
-Government sends the army overseas to fight a "corrupt dictatorship" Translation "Free oil deposits"
-Bush lies and twists CIA reports to fit his needs. "How can we blame this on Irag?"-after 911
-We have enough "nuclear(to be said in texas accent)" bombs and missles to destroy every piece of land on this 10 times over.

Compared to this the Libral shortcomings in Cananda seem like little ants hext to Shaq.

So when people say too much conservatisim can spawn dictatorships, remember, so can too much liberalism. And right now, that's what we've got. We're already on that path with this "Political Correctness" bullcrap.
That was all bullshit! Political correctness is not liberal. No amount of liberalism can cause dictatorship! Too much conservatism can. See General Pinochet.

Ontario, the largest province in the country is seriously considering allowing Sharia, a muslim form of law, i say we are going too far. Importing culture yes, importing laws, no.
So Ontario is about to declare homosexuality, and childbirth out of wedlock to be offenses punishable by death (i.e. Sharia law)?

Let's come back here a second. I never said I was repeled by it. As stated above, let them go on with their lives, but still, if it's allowed too much, like it's about to be, there will be a very angry straight mob, and that will be trouble. Our current system has worked fine for over 200 years, why change now?
1. Gays are not asking for anything radical.

2. The system has been constantly changing over the past 200 years. For example, people used to think slavery was OK.

3. The definition of marriage has also changed a lot. It used to be wrong to marry outside of your hometown. Then it was wrong to marry outside of your religion. Then it was wrong to marry outside your race (by 1967, 37 states had passed bans on interracial marriage). Now it's wrong to marry someone of the same sex. Read: not actually wrong.

And you, my friend, should face the fact that you are afraid that your dream of a perfect little society where everyone is all happy and gay (not the slang meaning) will never see the light of day. Because there will always be the one person who is not happy. Face it, you're afraid of someone else's view, and so you resort to personal attacks.
Did you read Vittos' post? He spent most of the time talking about how great democracy is because it permits dissent.

Or was the part of it you quoted the only part you are able to refute?

because that will just piss some christian people off...
So you actually like political correctness when it's protecting you from being offended? Nobody has the right not to be offended. That's right. Political correctness sucks!

liberals themselves do seem biased in the direction of fanaticism. That is not uncommon in a declining political movement since anyone who isn't a "True Believer" does tend to fall by the wayside.
Liberalism is not a declining movement.

www.nosharia.com/ let me know what you think.
That's really scary. I had no idea that this was happening in Canada.

Canada City']If they actually want people to have jobs, maybe they shouldn't be taxing everyone first. I don't see why I should be paying for someone else's healthcare or welfare. Conservatives understand this, Liberals don't.
So you don't think that you should be paying for the health of your own fellow citizens, but that you should be paying for the freedom and welfare of Iraqis?

So far everything you don't agree with is a mass of rambling thoughts.
I've made several refutations of the stuff I have been able to decipher. I suggest that you use sentences and not just .... dots.... like.... this.... between statements. I also suggest paragraphs. It makes your arguments easier to read.

How about giving people money with no requirements to have them learn to help themselves when possible.
Do you even know the law? In most countries (maybe not yours?) which have welfare systems, the welfare is cut back after six months to encourage you to get a job.

Somehow or another, I find all of this amusing...

Liberalism, using a definition that would state it as the political philosophy focusing on the expansion of policies defined, usually, under nation-specific circumstances, though generally the philosophy of increasing the civil liberties of all individuals within a nation, is unstoppable. It, honestly, barely matters if it is destroying America or not. If you trace Judeo-Christian law, you'll find that theocracy, of which we can assume is the ultimate conservative government - realizing that the system is an organized reaction to demands made by one, or a pantheon of, god(s), was replaced by a, for the time, liberal monarchy. Monarchy, as time progressed, was replaced with a Republic (though usually more of an oligarchy, but nonetheless, slightly representative) in the Italian city-states and a sort of set of civil rights marginally appeared in the Magna Carta in England. The Enlightment brings about Democratic-Republic (US/original notions of France/notions of expansion of voting power in some of the German states)... et cetera. With each year, the world shifts towards a greater resultant liberalism. This, however, is an issue. If humanity continues to act with flaws, as it has and always will, then liberalism, truly an idealist's realism (whereas conservatism is a realist's idealism), will open itself too wide and government will lose its purpose (which is to secure the safety of its citizens - each nation expounds further upon this point, but post-Dark Ages political structures are founded upon the "I've got a bigger, better army, so I'm the leader" principle). Anarchy? I would dare to say that its possible, but unlikely. However, we can create too many freedoms and essentially abolish order (an ultra-liberalist voice would be to say, "and from what perspective is that order?"). Elections, in a perfectly liberal state, would require 100% of the votes, or else its a botched referendum.

Now, do I believe that we're about ready to crash and burn all because the American Left is out of whack? No. Do I believe the American Right is suffocating the Union? No. Do I believe that everyone's doing what they've always politically been doing and creating an "end of the world" mudslingers' fest? Yes. Understand that the nature of the government means it can help or hurt an economy, but not drastically alter it (under the Democratic-Republic, federal system that the USA so enjoys). FDR HELPED the US economy - he, alone, did not revive it. Economic change requires consumer intelligence (if such a thing exists) and confidence. Do cuts in taxes or different social welfare programs change this? Yes - but they aren't going to manufacture boom or bust that will actually be semi-solid. Remember the Stock Market Crash? There was an attempt, on the behalf of conservative business owners, to pump the stock market with cash... well, it still crashed. Moving into the present, I don't think the current economic status is, to what each side would propose, even near what Left-ist or Right-ist advocates would have us believe is government-modified. The US government is influential, no doubt, but it still can't, technically, tell its citizens how to spend their every penny.

What is killing America? Partisan apathy, bipartisan apathy, unaffliated apathy. The nation isn't dead, by any means, but it is losing the lustre of its "superpower" status. I think our country could learn quite a bit from studying the "superpowers" of the past - Rome, Byzantium, Britain, Russia, et cetera. I think we need to quit bickering and actually do something. Yeah, active conservatism, active liberalism. What a magical thought...

We're going to have to compete against China in the very future for this "superpower" nametag - not the Right, not the Left. What's the major compotent of every superpower's downfall? Rebellion. The Romans had the Goths, the Byzantines had their Western empire and external forces rebelling internally, the English had America and India, and the Soviet Union, based in Russia, had their entire Eastern Bloc waving red flags. If the nation finds a means to deal with its issues and get them out of the way, so they don't boil over, then the nation eliminates that "x" factor of unhappiness of policies. Is the US going to suffer any state-wide rebellions in the next decade? I sorely doubt it, but it'd be nice to make the same statement projected across the next century, now wouldn't it?

Your stupidity is appaling.
he just proved that all he says is no longer credible due to his stupidity.
In other words, everyone ignore them, they are both fools.
http://www.DontLinkTo_albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.phpCalling someone a fool, stupid, and so forth several times in a single post, bad. Linking to a flash on a forbidden site to flame them even more, very bad.
you clearly have no vision, like a moron... you stood there with your thumb up your rear... with no clue on what to do next. DOH... it aint there in the book... what do I do.... duh huh.. duh huh...Reiterating the point about calling someone a moron, idiot, etc ... it's bad.

If you can't keep the flaming, trolling, and flamebaiting out of this thread, it will be locked and the offenders warned or worse.

Knock it off, NOW.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

-No Child Left Behind punishes schools with below average test scores by cutting funding. (you would seriously think they would raise funding to try and help them but no)


Can't be as bad as here.

Living in Ontario, we are pretty much the center of Canada. As much as those other proviences think of themselves highly (especially Quebec and British Columbia), Ontario is the heart of Canada. Most of the jobs and education comes from Ontario.

Yet we aren't funded as well as other proviences. Your students have to suck to lose money for the school; we lose money for being decent.


Patriot Act limits our rights even further, government now has access to private information on every citizen in our country.


For what I understand, they can track you and shit. All I have to say is...so what. Until I see reports of people disappearing left and right and government officials beating visible minorities in alleyways (don't count california), I wouldn't care too much. I don't think the government is going to care about a white male student.

Alright, first of all cursing your head off doesn't make you look cool, nor does it add credibility to you, nor does it make people want to listen to you. Rather, people see your foul language and take you for a wacko who cannot have a intelligent debate without spouting off your mouth with curses.

Secondly, your first "critisism" of me is idiotic, and if you read the entire thread this has already been brought up. Liberalism in the Gilded Age was an outgrowth of the Liberalism started by the French Revolution and the Enlightenment. The Liberalism now is an offspring of the Progressive movement and F.D.R.'s New Deal. Get your facts straight.

Your third comment makes no sense. "beacon of freedom"? where does that come into play?

Forth, not everyone, not even *gasp* the President has to toe the party line. Look at Woodrow Wilson, he didn't toe the party lie, but instead started major reforms. Enough said about that paragraph, moving on.

Fifth, only Bible thompers ask for the Bible to come BEFORE the Constitution, and not the entire Right wing agrees with them, certainly I do not. Most people on the Right believe that it should be used in tandum with the Constitution, not without it, to govern America.

Sixth, three words: ACLU and NAACP and NOW. Yes, the Right has their radicals, but so do the Left, and unlike the Left, the Right's extremists don't control the media and the judicial system.

Seventh, the Founding Fathers were actually conservatives with some liberal views. They did not believe in pure democracy because they, as aristocrats, feared the mob, so they combined liberal and conservative positions when forming this nation.

Eighth, your last paragraph not only makes little to no sense, it has no place in this argument.


First off, I could give a rats ass if anyone thinks "I'm cool" or anything else. I'm not here for vanity.

Second, if you think that their are no common elements between the liberalism of the Enlightenment and what is currently perceived to be liberalism, then you have no clue beyond the recitation of textbook definitions. And once you resort to that shit, much as the rest of your proposition you have simply labelled something that spans a wide array of concepts into an amorphous blob that has no fucking bearing on the real world at all. You touch on that later when you want to discuss the nuances of though on the right, howver you seem to insist that "Liberalism" has no such nuance and in and of itself serves no purpose. And you make that brave assertion initially without even specifying a single goddamn issue in any way besides fringe opinion.

As to much of the rest, apparently sarcasm, satire and yourself are not close friends. That's a shame. Although I'm sure you could come up with a nice fucking dictionary definition of those too.

Doesn't mean you understand it or appreciate it though now does it?



So, in conclusion, stop cursing, get your facts straight and have a resonable discussion or get out.

My facts are far closer to reality than your oversimplification of the political spectrum at play. Generalizations to the degree you are making serve no damn purpose except for those looking to set up strawmen and/or make ad-hominen attacks.

As to the rest: make me.

I'll curse if I fucking want to, and I'll debate what I fucking want to. Those are both permitted in the TOS of this board within certain limitations. And if you don't like that, well go start up your own damn board with your own damn rules and debate yourself there to your heart's content. On the plus side, with that scenario you'll probably win.

Not everyone knows it deep down, to think he said that is laughable. Now he could have said, "most people deep down know", Because all is not believable.
Calling Homosexual and supporters perverted is a weird though...
Well, he is a rude man who believes that homosexuality is wrong. That does not mean he is a homophobe.

What tells you he is paranoid?
And remember Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

I think he is a homophobe because he shows that he is repulsed by homosexuality and he has an unnatural fear that homosexuals are out to turn everyone gay. That is both signs of paranoia and a phobia, at least in my opinion.

Well to be fair, Catholics and Protestants are nothing alike usually. True everyone in general has morals. But groups in each religion have low amounts of morals such as your Osamas(Islam), Saddam (Athiest), and Bush (Baptist). I apologize if calling Bush on on his morals was wrong lol

I did not mean specific individuals for one thing, I meant that the entire group in general has morals. And it would be very difficult to say that Osama, Bush, and maybe even Saddam, do not have morals, just that their value set may completely counteract with your own. NOTE: Not trying to justify the acts of any of them.

Yeah I bet he is Biased. But than again, us liberals could be biased against republicans (notice not conservatives, few exist I fear left, most are neo-cons that call themselves cons).

I admitted that I may be biased, I would say that most likely I am, but I just don't want to pigeon-hole myself just in case I turn conservative, because I am kind of making a swing towards the middle, and I don't know where it will stop.

Nope not in America. America we have a Representative Republic. We used to have democracy I think when we voted in washington.

But after that when the Electoral College was created we shifted. That small bif of lost freedom has permentaly for now curropted us from being considered a democracy.

Sometimes makes me wonder why we call ourselves a Democracy when we aren't!

Don't start with that old chestnut, I have heard that too many times to care anymore. Representative republic or democracy, my point still stands.

First off, I could give a rats ass if anyone thinks "I'm cool" or anything else. I'm not here for vanity.

Second, if you think that their are no common elements between the liberalism of the Enlightenment and what is currently perceived to be liberalism, then you have no clue beyond the recitation of textbook definitions. And once you resort to that , much as the rest of your proposition you have simply labelled something that spans a wide array of concepts into an amorphous blob that has no ing bearing on the real world at all. You touch on that later when you want to discuss the nuances of though on the right, howver you seem to insist that "Liberalism" has no such nuance and in and of itself serves no purpose. And you make that brave assertion initially without even specifying a single goddamn issue in any way besides fringe opinion.

As to much of the rest, apparently sarcasm, satire and yourself are not close friends. That's a shame. Although I'm sure you could come up with a nice ing dictionary definition of those too.

Doesn't mean you understand it or appreciate it though now does it?





My facts are far closer to reality than your oversimplification of the political spectrum at play. Generalizations to the degree you are making serve no damn purpose except for those looking to set up strawmen and/or make ad-hominen attacks.

As to the rest: make me.

I'll curse if I ing want to, and I'll debate what I ing want to. Those are both permitted in the TOS of this board within certain limitations. And if you don't like that, well go start up your own damn board with your own damn rules and debate yourself there to your heart's content. On the plus side, with that scenario you'll probably win.

You really are unable to have an intellegent debate aren't you? You, yet again, curse your head off in a civilized debate making yourself look like a fool, and you completly dismissed everything i wrote which countered you. That in itself proves that I am correct, because you do not even try to prove me wrong, you just wave you hand and dismiss me. Nice debating method, thats a real winner there.

I never said there was no similalities between the Progressive movement and the Enlightenment movement, you are putting words in my mouth. I specifically said that the Progressive movement is an offspring of the Enlightenment movement, so therefore, by common sense, they have some similarities, but I reject the new ideas in the Progressive movement suce as the graduated income tax. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I have not made any oversimplification of the political spectrum, a few pages ago I described my understanding of Communism (in extremely basic terms because that was what he asked me to write it in), so I would appriciate it if you deflated your ego a bit and accepted the fact that there just might be other people in the world who know things besides you and hold different ideas besides you.

You really are pathetic.

It's easier to find stuff on dictionary.com if you get the spelling right ...
No shit, Sherlock! :eek:
I made fun of the bad spelling and semantics of the original poster, i quoted. Which was clearly visible, as i included the part containing "conservitive" as well as "try using a dictionary". The next paragraph explicitely dealt with my trouble understanding Kisgard because of his erronous use of written english (combined with poor argumentation, i might add). See, that wasnt too hard now, was it? :p

You really are unable to have an intellegent debate aren't you? You, yet again, curse your head off in a civilized debate making yourself look like a fool, and you completly dismissed everything i wrote which countered you.
1+1=2, fuckwit.
There, is my statement wrong because of me being indecent and condescending?
Just an example, i dont know you well enough to actually mean that.

You really are unable to have an intellegent debate aren't you? You, yet again, curse your head off in a civilized debate making yourself look like a fool, and you completly dismissed everything i wrote which countered you. That in itself proves that I am correct, because you do not even try to prove me wrong, you just wave you hand and dismiss me. Nice debating method, thats a real winner there.

I never said there was no similalities between the Progressive movement and the Enlightenment movement, you are putting words in my mouth. I specifically said that the Progressive movement is an offspring of the Enlightenment movement, so therefore, by common sense, they have some similarities, but I reject the new ideas in the Progressive movement suce as the graduated income tax. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I have not made any oversimplification of the political spectrum, a few pages ago I described my understanding of Communism (in extremely basic terms because that was what he asked me to write it in), so I would appriciate it if you deflated your ego a bit and accepted the fact that there just might be other people in the world who know things besides you and hold different ideas besides you.




I may be foul, but if your notion is that you are "proved correct" because you don't like the debate style of your opponent, I think you will find a pretty piss-poor level of support for that notion.


Let's try it this way and imagine two people having a hypothetical debate in a pub:

Person 1) The earth is fucking flat, and not only that but the sun revolves around my testicles.
Person 2) Oh fuck off already.
Person 1) Your foul lack of a intellectual response proves my assertion correct!


Errr, no. Which is not to be taken as my attempting to equate your assertions as being as fucking dumb as imaginary Person 1's. Just trying to illustrate a point regarding the logical fallacy of your assertion regarding what my posts prove or do not prove about the correctness of your point of view on this subject. Nor should it be taken to mean that my response to you was to fuck off.



My initial response - which you didn't care for - was directly responding to your initial post which included such fatuous notions as

1) Liberals as a whole cannot respond to opposing viewpoints without calling people names or throwing pies at their heads.
2) Liberalism is destroying our national identity - without giving any single supporting fact to back that up.
3) Liberals want to allow illegal aliens rights, when, as I pointed out so do some rather conservative Presidents.
4) Liberalism AS A WHOLE has "finished it's usefullness" and "will destroy us"

But you say that while also stating that the liberalism of the guilded age which brought much social justice to the country was a good thing.


In other words, despite trying to generalize over textbook definitions, what I gather that you are really saying is that "Liberalism WAS good, but we have reached the borders of HOW liberal a society I am willing to accept."

That is a better fucking statement, wherby you feel that you have found the balance point between liberalism and conservatism that YOU would prefer. However to state that the liberal side of that balanced equation should now just fuck off and go away is rediculous. Politics demands opposing viewpoints to keep itself centered. Do away with the liberal side of the fucking equation and the centrist position takes a huge fucking leap to the right, and pretty soon you find yourself backsliding to a position I'll bet you aren't happy with.


Liberalism will destroy you? Doubtful.


But you bet your ass that the lack of a loud liberal voice to counter the extreme asshats on the far right certainly will cause a major change for the worse too.


You really are pathetic.

I may be a rude son of a bitch, and you may not like that, but that is not your call to make. Not your board.

Directed statements of THIS variety, however, ARE prohibited by the TOS.

I'm not the sort to run to the Mods and whine about such things because frankly I don't give a rats ass what people think of me. You on the other hand DO seem to care, so I would suggest that you not get yourself in a snit and keep up with that approach. The Mods DO, after all, seem to be watching this thread.

To bad intelligence is not based on ones ability to follow instructions. I sign says turn here for Hwy 5... and a ditch is there... hwy 5 is 50 ft away... you drive into the ditch and blame the sign... because you think your smart.. ok lap dog... look up conservative... not that you will be able to comprehend the meaning. But your behavior is true to the pattern, claiming to be intelligent, yet not smart enough to solve a problem.

Nice job. :) again you show why Liberals should not make law... you clearly have no vision, like a moron... you stood there with your thumb up your rear... with no clue on what to do next. DOH... it aint there in the book... what do I do.... duh huh.. duh huh...

Look, i dunno how blatant i have to be, but:
It is your poor grasp of english and communication skills i am making fun of.
But no, you just dont get it, huh? And then its personal attacks, assumptions that are far from the truth, mindless drivel and you still dont get that all i did was ridiculing you with the ammunition you provided. Too bad you are not getting the joke and embarrass yourself some more. :D

First, I agree with you that Kisgard has no idea what he/she is talking about.

Second, you're a big hypocrite. Grammar and spelling errors in bold:

Look, i dunno how blatant i have to be, but:
It is your poor grasp of english and communication skills i am making fun of.
But no, you just dont get it, huh? And then its personal attacks, assumptions that are far from the truth, mindless drivel and you still dont get that all i did was ridiculing you with the ammunition you provided. Too bad you are not getting the joke and embarrass yourself some more. :D

This is sort of going back to the start of the thread, but what exactly IS wrong with liberal society? I don't mean American-left wing society, but with the very ideology and institutions of liberalism as a political theory.

I feel there are several big problems with libralism itself, and more importantly the liberal society that has grown out of this theory.

1) people are seen as a 'means', not an 'end'.

In liberal society, it seems increasingly normal to view people as a means to your own ends. I think this is visible in two major areas: employment, where your employer often has no concern for you or your life (especially in liberalizing third world nations) and in the service industry, where we treat people not as fellow humans, but as 'service robots', essentially.

2) Relationships are reduced to economic transactions.

Increasingly, it seems as if we are reducing many of our institutions to economic transactions. This is plainly visible in privatization. Previously public bodies, which served not only economic purposes but social and political purposes, are being rendered private, and thus outside of political/social sphere. We do not seem to have a shared sense of community any more. Increasingly, our moral ends seem to have been commodified.

3) Alienation from Community.

We no longer seem to attach importance to communities, whether geographical, interest, or what have you. We seem to becoming more isolated and more atomized. We do not feel as if we are engaged in a cooperative political venture. This of course is a cycle- the more we feel estranged from community, the more we isolate ourselves from it, and we feel even more estranged.

These are only a few of the criticism that have been leveled at liberal society, and I don't think the liberal ideological framework can properly address them.

This is sort of going back to the start of the thread, but what exactly IS wrong with liberal society? I don't mean American-left wing society, but with the very ideology and institutions of liberalism as a political theory.

I feel there are several big problems with libralism itself, and more importantly the liberal society that has grown out of this theory.

1) people are seen as a 'means', not an 'end'.

In liberal society, it seems increasingly normal to view people as a means to your own ends. I think this is visible in two major areas: employment, where your employer often has no concern for you or your life (especially in liberalizing third world nations) and in the service industry, where we treat people not as fellow humans, but as 'service robots', essentially.

2) Relationships are reduced to economic transactions.

Increasingly, it seems as if we are reducing many of our institutions to economic transactions. This is plainly visible in privatization. Previously public bodies, which served not only economic purposes but social and political purposes, are being rendered private, and thus outside of political/social sphere. We do not seem to have a shared sense of community any more. Increasingly, our moral ends seem to have been commodified.

3) Alienation from Community.

We no longer seem to attach importance to communities, whether geographical, interest, or what have you. We seem to becoming more isolated and more atomized. We do not feel as if we are engaged in a cooperative political venture. This of course is a cycle- the more we feel estranged from community, the more we isolate ourselves from it, and we feel even more estranged.

These are only a few of the criticism that have been leveled at liberal society, and I don't think the liberal ideological framework can properly address them.


While you have some fucking points on some societal issues, I am curious as to how these are inherently caused by liberalism? I mean, one of the popular fucking knocks about the supposed "liberal-agenda" is that they want big government to run everything, and yet your complain #2 deals with the privitization of previously public bodies. Should this not then be a problem with fucking Conservatism?

Also, by what means to you attach community alienation as being rooted in Liberalism? ne could equally fucking argue the steriotype that - in the US - the Republican (i.e. Conservative) political machine is being run around generating fear to get citizens to aquiesce to their policies, and it is that fear which causes people to hide in their homes from their scary neighbours.


Which is to say that I'm not disagreeing that you have some valid fucking concerns as to the societal direction of the country, but one wonders how you can attribute the fault of this as being in the liberal camp given that the Conservatives have held power for five out of the last seven Presidential terms, and held control of the houses of government besides the highest office for one of the two terms held by the Democrats.

Or do the liberals run the country even when the Conservatives own the White House, Congress, and Senate? Because that would be one hell of a neat trick!

Second, you're a big hypocrite. Grammar and spelling errors in bold:
Yup, but i am intelligible, thats the difference. Besides, cut me some slack, neither apostrophes nor capitalising I is natural to me, i just dont bother. But ridiculing and embarrass are spelled right, eh?

While you have some fucking points on some societal issues, I am curious as to how these are inherently caused by liberalism? I mean, one of the popular fucking knocks about the supposed "liberal-agenda" is that they want big government to run everything, and yet your complain #2 deals with the privitization of previously public bodies. Should this not then be a problem with fucking Conservatism?

Also, by what means to you attach community alienation as being rooted in Liberalism? ne could equally fucking argue the steriotype that - in the US - the Republican (i.e. Conservative) political machine is being run around generating fear to get citizens to aquiesce to their policies, and it is that fear which causes people to hide in their homes from their scary neighbours.


Which is to say that I'm not disagreeing that you have some valid fucking concerns as to the societal direction of the country, but one wonders how you can attribute the fault of this as being in the liberal camp given that the Conservatives have held power for five out of the last seven Presidential terms, and held control of the houses of government besides the highest office for one of the two terms held by the Democrats.

Or do the liberals run the country even when the Conservatives own the White House, Congress, and Senate? Because that would be one hell of a neat trick!

As I said, I meant liberalism the political theory, not American left-wing rhetoric. That should clear up your questions.

As I said, I meant liberalism the political theory, not American left-wing rhetoric. That should clear up your questions.

Hogwash!

As I said, I meant liberalism the political theory, not American left-wing rhetoric. That should clear up your questions.



It does. In other words you are attempting to apply generally meaningless textbook definitions to the real world, which is a pretty fucking pointless exercise when discussing actual politics.


Because, let's face it - there is no party in the US that fits neatly into ANY political theory to be found anywhere. Hell, even the American Left-wing (or right wing) rhetoric that you speak of has no real representation in congress.


If you don't have anyone in office espousing "liberalism, the theory", then why would you blame it as a causative factor in societal problems when instead we could do something usefull like looking at specific policies - regardless of who enacted them - and considering them on their merits?



It's a little like blaming "gravity - the theory" for a kid falling to their death when you should really be looking into what idiot forgot to install the guardrail properly on the bridge....

It does. In other words you are attempting to apply generally meaningless textbook definitions to the real world, which is a pretty fucking pointless exercise when discussing actual politics.


Because, let's face it - there is no party in the US that fits neatly into ANY political theory to be found anywhere. Hell, even the American Left-wing (or right wing) rhetoric that you speak of has no real representation in congress.


If you don't have anyone in office espousing "liberalism, the theory", then why would you blame it as a causative factor in societal problems when instead we could do something usefull like looking at specific policies - regardless of who enacted them - and considering them on their merits?



It's a little like blaming "gravity - the theory" for a kid falling to their death when you should really be looking into what idiot forgot to install the guardrail properly on the bridge....

Uh, but liberalism in terms of ideology has little (or nothing) to do with American liberalism. They're entirely different things. Liberalism has more to do with Libertarianism than any other political movement in America. So really I don't think any of your commentary applies.

My criticism of liberalism is based on the philosophical implications of the theory that:
rights are natural
and
freedom means an agent is free from human obstruction to pursue a given end

than anything else.

So say what you want about 'textbooks' and what have you, you're still dead wrong.

Uh, but liberalism in terms of ideology has little (or nothing) to do with American liberalism. They're entirely different things. Liberalism has more to do with Libertarianism than any other political movement in America. So really I don't think any of your commentary applies.

My criticism of liberalism is based on the philosophical implications of the theory that:
rights are natural
and
freedom means an agent is free from human obstruction to pursue a given end

than anything else.

So say what you want about 'textbooks' and what have you, you're still dead wrong.

Interesting.

So what you're saying is that the founding fathers were morons for suggesting that each and every citizen had certain inalienable rights, and should be free from obstruction for pursuing such abnoxious ideas as happiness?


Again, you are trying to put a blanket textbook statement on reality. I think you will find few that think that all rights are natural, ergo all you might be arguing are which ones you think people are deserving of, and which ends people should be free to pursue. Which again rarely comes down to a liberal versus conservative ideal as this seems a far more worthy fucking idea than the conservative ideal that business should be unfettered from obstruction to meet the ends of pure profits at the expense of societal needs.

Which is to say, that any theory presented at the blanket level of specificity as you put it bears no relation to the individual specific instances that crop up in reality.

I mean, if I say: "all people have the natural right to believe in God", somhow I doubt people will scream "You fucking Liberal!" at me. But if I were to say "everyone has the natural right to a six-figure income, even if they won't get off their asses and work for it", then most people WILL scream "You fucking liberal" at me.

Which is, once again, why blanket generalizations such as "people have natural rights" is neither really a liberal nor a conservative ideal.


Or, perhaps I should rephrase this to: As an anti-liberal, which rights do you think people should NOT have, and which things should be obstructed simply for the sake of obstructing them?

Is Liberalism Is Destroying America?
Is Lack Of Education Is Destroying America?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

i am centrist myself but uhh have you guys seen these neo cons see ok i was watching this show japans war in colour...very strange that the bush government and the Tojo government are identical i mean ok there was a picture of nanjing and a bunch of japanese business men near soldiers looking at plans to rebuild that you could put right next to the ones of american businessmen in iraq and it would be identicatl. speaches from bush and tojo also the behaviour of soldiers. See turns out guantanamo bay is a concentration camp for anyone they dont like 90% of iraqis going there went there cause the american government didnt like em, for not liking the americans but not fighting
em. So basically these Neo cons are a bunch of ffascists so uhh yeah i can honestly say they are nuts way worse then the lefties. Me i am centrist i dont like left or right i think your both nuts lol

i am centrist myself but uhh have you guys seen these neo cons see ok i was watching this show japans war in colour...very strange that the bush government and the Tojo government are identical i mean ok there was a picture of nanjing and a bunch of japanese business men near soldiers looking at plans to rebuild that you could put right next to the ones of american businessmen in iraq and it would be identicatl. speaches from bush and tojo also the behaviour of soldiers. See turns out guantanamo bay is a concentration camp for anyone they dont like 90% of iraqis going there went there cause the american government didnt like em, for not liking the americans but not fighting
em. So basically these Neo cons are a bunch of f ts so uhh yeah i can honestly say they are nuts way worse then the lefties. Me i am centrist i dont like left or right i think your both nuts lol

Ok, first of all, try using periods once in a while. Second, the Tojo government was a dictatorship and killed millions of Chinese in Manchuria. Say what you will about Bush, but comparing him to Tojo is just idiotic. Guantanamo Bay is a concentration camp?! Alright, let's look at the history of concentration camps for a moment, shall we? WW2, Germany's concentration camps: 1) millions died of malnutritution. 2) millions died in gas chambers. 3) millions died by firing squad. Let's look at the USSR's concentration camps, especially Siberia: 1) tens of millions died of tourture and malnutrition and neglect. Lets look at China: 1) same as in the USSR. Let's look at North Korea: 1) same as China. Let's look at North Vietnam: 1) same as China. Let's look at Iraq: 1) same as China, same mass graves, same gasing of people (the Kurds), etc. Now, having studied those concentration camps, lets look at Guantanamo Bay: 1) The prisoners number in the low thousands, not tens of millions. 2) The prisioners eat better then our soldiers in the field. They are eating chicken a la mode and other fancy dishes, while our soldiers are eating c-rations. 3) The "tourture" they recieve involve loud music, water, and standing. Maybe I should sue my boss, I have to stand for over an hour at a time too. Maybe I should sue myself or the record companies or the stero manufactuer for the loud music I play. Maybe I should sue every shower head manufacterer for the water beating down upon my head in the shower.

Do you see my point? Say what you will about Bush and Guantanamo Bay, but calling him a dictator and calling Git-Mo a concentration camp is not only disgustingly incorrect, its a bold-faced lie which people in Amnesty International, the ACLU, and the radical side of the International Red Cross are trying to feed to the people of the world.

Liberalism leads to the overacceptance of centrist issues and thus radically degrades the ideological struggle. I am against Liberalism and Conservatism as well as anything right of those two.

I described my understanding of Communism
You seem to understand communism, but you never explained why it is like liberalism.

Communism or Socialism? Neither one are like Liberalism in any way. Both can be classified as further left, although Communism has never existed on earth in any way other than pre-feudal conditions.

While you have some fucking points on some societal issues, I am curious as to how these are inherently caused by liberalism? I mean, one of the popular fucking knocks about the supposed "liberal-agenda" is that they want big government to run everything, and yet your complain #2 deals with the privitization of previously public bodies. Should this not then be a problem with fucking Conservatism?

Also, by what means to you attach community alienation as being rooted in Liberalism? ne could equally fucking argue the steriotype that - in the US - the Republican (i.e. Conservative) political machine is being run around generating fear to get citizens to aquiesce to their policies, and it is that fear which causes people to hide in their homes from their scary neighbours.

Which is to say that I'm not disagreeing that you have some valid fucking concerns as to the societal direction of the country, but one wonders how you can attribute the fault of this as being in the liberal camp given that the Conservatives have held power for five out of the last seven Presidential terms, and held control of the houses of government besides the highest office for one of the two terms held by the Democrats.

Or do the liberals run the country even when the Conservatives own the White House, Congress, and Senate? Because that would be one hell of a neat trick!
You really need to calm down. He was talking about Liberalism as it is understood everywhere except America. In America it's called Libertarianism.

Also, stop sayting liberals and conservatives when you mean Democrats and Republicans. "The Conservatives" are a party in UK politics.

Which is, once again, why blanket generalizations such as "people have natural rights" is neither really a liberal nor a conservative ideal.
If the Democrats and Republicans are the extent of the political spectrum in your mind I see why you think this. "Natural Rights" are a liberal Enlightenment idea.

Actually, Liberalism is also understood the same way in China as it is in the USA. The over-acceptance wanted by some which includes even more representation than the Three Represents, which alone is too liberal of a policy for me and I strongly criticize Jiang Zemin for his introduction of it, although I hear Comrade Hu is planning on reversing this policy.

Interesting.

So what you're saying is that the founding fathers were morons for suggesting that each and every citizen had certain inalienable rights, and should be free from obstruction for pursuing such abnoxious ideas as happiness?


yes. More or less. They didn't tell us WHERE these rights came from, or WHY they are inalienable, and then immediately after, they started alineated such rights through legislation. So basically yes, I don't think they were particularly intellectually precise. Also, I'm not american, so I have no problem calling your founding fathers 'Morons'.

Again, you are trying to put a blanket textbook statement on reality. I think you will find few that think that all rights are natural, ergo all you might be arguing are which ones you think people are deserving of, and which ends people should be free to pursue. Which again rarely comes down to a liberal versus conservative ideal as this seems a far more worthy fucking idea than the conservative ideal that business should be unfettered from obstruction to meet the ends of pure profits at the expense of societal needs.

Hey guess what ass-face? You have the face of an ass! hey the ass store just called, they're all out of YOU! etc.

The founding fathers didn't give a shit about societal needs. The founding fathers L-L-triple L-Loved slavery, so eff you, etc.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Moreover, the Founding Fathers would have supported big buisness, that's what they was all about.

Which is to say, that any theory presented at the blanket level of specificity as you put it bears no relation to the individual specific instances that crop up in reality.
Reread my original post, it was directed purely at the reality of liberalism (as a political theory, not as you jackass perception of it).

I mean, if I say: "all people have the natural right to believe in God", somhow I doubt people will scream "You fucking Liberal!" at me. But if I were to say "everyone has the natural right to a six-figure income, even if they won't get off their asses and work for it", then most people WILL scream "You fucking liberal" at me.

That's cause you're an idiot though.

Which is, once again, why blanket generalizations such as "people have natural rights" is neither really a liberal nor a conservative ideal.[/quote[

WRONG!!! minus a million two thousand points. The premise people have natural rights is a liberal one. Period. End game. checkmate, etc.

[quote]Or, perhaps I should rephrase this to: As an anti-liberal, which rights do you think people should NOT have, and which things should be obstructed simply for the sake of obstructing them?

in essence, people should have the right to things which are consistent with participatory democracy towards the end of freedom.

You seem to understand communism, but you never explained why it is like liberalism.

I think one of the problems we are all having on this thread which is keeping open debate from occuring is that everyone is using a different idea of the political sprctrum. the one i use is from www.politicalcompass.org. now, going by that one, since my views of what is Right and Left comes from that, communism is upper left, or authortarian left. From all of the books I have read, politcal tests i have taken, and ideologies i have studied, my conception is that liberalism, socialism, and communism, anarcism, syndicalism, etc., are all left wing, and they just vary upon how far upper or lower they are. however, in my mind almost all, if not all, left wing ideologies are liberal. this may not be correct, but it makes it much easier to catalogue in my head when i am studying 5 or 6 different political theories at once, thats all.

you do realize according to Marxism, in Communism there is no state, correct? thus, Communism in reality is the bottom left while Socialism might be more top left. The lack of Western understanding of actual Marxist theory causes many errors.

you do realize according to Marxism, in Communism there is no state, correct? thus, Communism in reality is the bottom left while Socialism might be more top left. The lack of Western understanding of actual Marxist theory causes many errors.

ah but you see, we are not completly incorrect. for while the end result is anarcy, before the stateless, classless society can develop there must be a dictatorship of the proletariat. marx said that himself. so before there can be no state there must be an all encompassing state according to marx.

I think one of the problems we are all having on this thread which is keeping open debate from occuring is that everyone is using a different idea of the political sprctrum. the one i use is from www.politicalcompass.org. now, going by that one, since my views of what is Right and Left comes from that, communism is upper left, or authortarian left. From all of the books I have read, politcal tests i have taken, and ideologies i have studied, my conception is that liberalism, socialism, and communism, anarcism, syndicalism, etc., are all left wing
I also use the political compass. However, liberalism is not like communism. Communism is far further to the economic left than liberalism.