Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on July 19, 2014, 04:58:16 AM
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
20 Examples of What Liberalism REALLY Is
Townhall.com ^ | July 19, 2014 | John Hawkins
Posted on July 19, 2014 at 7:27:26 AM EDT by Kaslin
1) Liberalism is college professors and documentary filmmakers accumulating vast fortunes in a capitalistic system by decrying the evils of capitalism.
2) Liberalism is claiming that the "border is secure" while saying we shouldn't deport anyone who illegally crosses the border.
3) Liberalism is "environmental activists" flying across the world to ride together in SUVs to posh environmental conferences where they call for everyone else to live like cavemen in order to save the planet.
4) Liberalism is spewing hatred and profanity at conservative women, calling for gun control that leaves women defenseless against rapists and murderers, and celebrating misogynistic pigs like Bill Clinton while accusing OTHER PEOPLE of being engaged in a "war on women."
5) Liberalism is people who say that asking for voter ID is racist while claiming that black Americans are too uniquely stupid and lazy to get an ID.
6) Liberalism is forcibly taking money you don't deserve from the people who earned it and calling THEM greedy for not wanting to give you even more.
7) Liberalism is saying that the government should confiscate guns from NRA members and kill them if they resist and then claiming that you have no idea why they think that they need guns to defend themselves.
8) Liberalism is people who sneer at displays of the American flag, tell the world America isn't exceptional, and criticize the country non-stop while getting offended if their patriotism is questioned.
9) Liberalism is calling for higher taxes while you cheat on your own taxes.
10) Liberalism is bitter, race-obsessed people who see EVERYTHING in racial terms, accusing OTHER PEOPLE of being racists.
11) Liberalism is saying you're for "choice" because you support abortion while opposing giving Americans choices about their health care, schools, whether they want to bake cakes for gay weddings, or even the light bulbs they have in their house.
12) Liberalism is calling everyone who disagrees with you a racist, bigoted, homophobic Nazi and then calling OTHER PEOPLE hateful.
13) Liberalism is considering yourself compassionate for wanting to forcibly confiscate other people's money to give away to constituent groups you hope will vote for you in exchange for the loot.
14) Liberalism is saying George W. Bush is a monkey who started the war in Iraq to "steal their oil" while becoming furious if anyone criticizes Obama.
15) Liberalism is pretending that Christians are dangerous while radical Islamists chanting "Death to America" and advocating Sharia law are harmless little lambs.
16) Liberalism is calling for guns to be taken away from Americans while you're protected by armed guards.
17) Liberalism is millionaires who have more money than they could spend in a lifetime railing against the horrors of "income inequality."
18) Liberalism is "animal rights activists" who eat meat and wear leather shoes screaming profanity at women who hunt.
19) Liberalism is black pundits who got their jobs solely because they're black and willing to call other people racists going on TV and claiming that white gas station attendants and fast food workers are benefitting from "privilege" because of their race.
20) Liberalism is thinking of yourself as an independent, open-minded free thinker for mindlessly parroting whatever the Democrat Party line is on every issue.
-
stop spending time trying to demonize liberalism.
repubs should instead, start focusing up explaining to americans why THEIR way is better.
Imagine if McDonalds made commercials showing bugs and rats at Burger king. It's the poison pizza issue, from economics. People avoid fast food altogether. Rather, they show commercials showing how good THEIR food is, without mentioning burger king.
If every 'libs suck' thread was instead a thread on a great, bold new repub idea, they'd win votes. I mean, demonizing libs has worked so well thus far... ask president mccain or president romney.
-
stop spending time trying to demonize liberalism.
repubs should instead, start focusing up explaining to americans why THEIR way is better.
Imagine if McDonalds made commercials showing bugs and rats at Burger king. It's the poison pizza issue, from economics. People avoid fast food altogether. Rather, they show commercials showing how good THEIR food is, without mentioning burger king.
If every 'libs suck' thread was instead a thread on a great, bold new repub idea, they'd win votes. I mean, demonizing libs has worked so well thus far... ask president mccain or president romney.
Seriously? How the fuck do you think Libs get "elected"? That's right, by demonizing the opposition and not by the fact or issues. No, this is where the repubs need to start playing hardball and play the libs own game. I say demonize the fuck out them and unlike what the libs do....back it with fact, thats the easy part.
-
Seriously? How the fuck do you think Libs get "elected"? That's right, by demonizing the opposition and not by the fact or issues. No, this is where the repubs need to start playing hardball and play the libs own game. I say demonize the fuck out them and unlike what the libs do....back it with fact, thats the easy part.
they win because they have convinced 53% or so of americans that their way is best.
And if you don't think they were "playing the same game as the libs" in 2008 and 2012, you weren't watching much TV lol. I mean, "Obama is trying to destroy america" is about as rough as one can get lol.
I mean, suppose hilary wins a term or two... will THEN be the time to try a new strategy? In 2008, obama's phrase was positive, that whole "yes we can" and change we can believe in". Sure it was bullshit, but it was POSITIVE. Palin was pure venom all over 2008. Mitt was about as two-faced and phony and negative as they come.
The only way repubs win in 2016? They have to run a POSITIVE campaign with a face that makes people feel GOOD. Can they do that?
-
they win because they have convinced 53% or so of americans that their way is best.
And if you don't think they were "playing the same game as the libs" in 2008 and 2012, you weren't watching much TV lol. I mean, "Obama is trying to destroy america" is about as rough as one can get lol.
I mean, suppose hilary wins a term or two... will THEN be the time to try a new strategy? In 2008, obama's phrase was positive, that whole "yes we can" and change we can believe in". Sure it was bullshit, but it was POSITIVE. Palin was pure venom all over 2008. Mitt was about as two-faced and phony and negative as they come.
The only way repubs win in 2016? They have to run a POSITIVE campaign with a face that makes people feel GOOD. Can they do that?
That's bullshit. He won by 1. Promising lazy people free shit and 2. By demonizing the opposition by fabricating lie after lie after lie that even after they were PROVEN to not be lies still pounded the same lies. The naive people who believe it, voted for it.
Another perfect recent example was what fake republican turn coat Thad Cochran did to Chris McDaniel in the primary and took out ads making him out to be a racist. He pulled Dem tactics with the help of Dems. Even though it wasn't true, he convinced the voting idiots it was.
-
That's bullshit. He won by 1. Promising lazy people free shit and 2. By demonizing the opposition by fabricating lie after lie after lie that even after they were PROVEN to not be lies still pounded the same lies. The naive people who believe it, voted for it.
Another perfect recent example was what fake republican turn coat Thad Cochran did to Chris McDaniel in the primary and took out ads making him out to be a racist. He pulled Dem tactics with the help of Dems. Even though it wasn't true, he convinced the voting idiots it was.
It amuses me greatly that you think that the vast majority of Republican politicians don't routinely employ these exact same tricks. Could you really be that naïve?
Most policitians are scum - the letter after their name doesn't matter. They whip the crowd into a frenzy by lying, twisting, fear-mongering and manipulating the small percentage of the electorate that actually decides elections (the famous "swing voters") since they know that their base (i.e. people like you, who unthinkingly vote for candidates solely based on the letter after a name) are more-or-less secure.
-
It amuses me greatly that you think that the vast majority of Republican politicians don't routinely employ these exact same tricks. Could you really be that naïve?
Most policitians are scum - the letter after their name doesn't matter. They whip the crowd into a frenzy by lying, twisting, fear-mongering and manipulating the small percentage of the electorate that actually decides elections (the famous "swing voters") since they know that their base (i.e. people like you, who unthinkingly vote for candidates solely based on the letter after a name) are more-or-less secure.
I never suggested they don't. They do, but not to the extent that the left does. What the right has going for them is that most can actually and accurately debate the facts of an issue.
-
I never suggested they don't. They do, but not to the extent that the left does. What the right has going for them is that most can actually and accurately debate the facts of an issue.
I don't agree that most on the right can describe the issues. Certainly most "right" voters can't describe the issues better than those on the left - they are just as misinformed, although not always about the same topics. As for the politicians on the right, they aren't much better either, and for every person who has command of the issues and can speak with authority and gravitas you have an airhead like Palin, who gets a lot more airtime and destroys any possibility of a serious debate ok the actual merits.
I'm disgusted by politicians - regardless of party. We have allowed politics to devolve by electing the politicians that we have. But, as disgusted as I am, I will say openly that we deserve them and the nation they have "built" on our behalf. If we didn't, we would have voted for better people instead of the likes of Boehner and Pelosi, McCain and Lieberman, Santorum and Kerry, Palin and Biden, Bush and Obama, etc.
-
I never suggested they don't. They do, but not to the extent that the left does. What the right has going for them is that most can actually and accurately debate the facts of an issue.
LOL ;D
-
I never suggested they don't. They do, but not to the extent that the left does. What the right has going for them is that most can actually and accurately debate the facts of an issue.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AAAAAAAA
Yeah, such "facts" as the birther issue? Obama being half Muslim?
You wouldn't know what facts and reality are if someone showed you a picture of them.
-
15) Liberalism is pretending that Christians are dangerous while radical Islamists chanting "Death to America" and advocating Sharia law are harmless little lambs.
lol...yep.
-
Us vs Them.....fucking idiots. Jokes on you.
-
15) Liberalism is pretending that Christians are dangerous while radical Islamists chanting "Death to America" and advocating Sharia law are harmless little lambs.
lol...yep.
Aint that the truth. I was in a meeting where someone (who happened to be lesbian) was condemning the Family Research Council as "virulently anti-gay" (because they support traditional marriage) while singing the praises of Muslims. I told her you cannot get more anti-gay than murdering people based on their sexual preference.
-
so does this mean republicans arent?
-
so does this mean republicans arent?
Are not what?
-
15) Liberalism is pretending that Christians are dangerous while radical Islamists chanting "Death to America" and advocating Sharia law are harmless little lambs.
lol...yep.
They're both dangerous - and for the same reasons. Any group that believes that it has "divine truth" on its side and has received a dictum to spread that belief is dangerous. The problem isn't the particular god, or the particular tenets of the religion in question, although they certainly help. The problem is unjustifiable mystical beliefs and the notion that those beliefs ought to be shoved down every non-believer's throat.
With that said, it's clear that at this time, Muslim extremism is a much more pressing issue. But let's not stick our head in the sand and pretend that only Muslims want to impose a theocracy.
-
They're both dangerous - and for the same reasons. Any group that believes that it has "divine truth" on its side and has received a dictum to spread that belief is dangerous. The problem isn't the particular god, or the particular tenets of the religion in question, although they certainly help. The problem is unjustifiable mystical beliefs and the notion that those beliefs ought to be shoved down every non-believer's throat.
With that said, it's clear that at this time, Muslim extremism is a much more pressing issue. But let's not stick our head in the sand and pretend that only Muslims want to impose a theocracy.
Preposterous. Christians are not dangerous. There is no legitimate effort in the United States by organized Christians to impose a theocracy. That's really absurd.
-
I can't recall the last time Christians hijacked planes filled with innocent men, women, and children and flew them into large public buildings filled with many innocent men, women, and children.
I don't see Christians beheading homosexuals and stoning to death females who had the audacity to be victims of rape.
I'm not religious, but I'm far more worried about muslims.
-
I can't recall the last time Christians hijacked planes filled with innocent men, women, and children and flew them into large public buildings filled with many innocent men, women, and children.
I don't see Christians beheading homosexuals and stoning to death females who had the audacity to be victims of rape.
I'm not religious, but I'm far more worried about muslims.
As you should be. Radical Islam is a dangerous to us all.
-
I can't recall the last time Christians hijacked planes filled with innocent men, women, and children and flew them into large public buildings filled with many innocent men, women, and children.
I don't see Christians beheading homosexuals and stoning to death females who had the audacity to be victims of rape.
I'm not religious, but I'm far more worried about muslims.
Exactly
-
I can't recall the last time Christians hijacked planes filled with innocent men, women, and children and flew them into large public buildings filled with many innocent men, women, and children.
I don't see Christians beheading homosexuals and stoning to death females who had the audacity to be victims of rape.
I'm not religious, but I'm far more worried about muslims.
The last time Christians went nuts on this scale was the 16th century...come on. As for the list...libs side with people who are virulently anti American and are outright enemies of the country. You really can't say the same for the right.
-
Preposterous. Christians are not dangerous. There is no legitimate effort in the United States by organized Christians to impose a theocracy. That's really absurd.
It's really not. Do note, I don't think that Christians are likely to fly planes into buildings or acts as virulently as Mulsims do. But the fact of the matter is that a great many Christians, too, seek to enforce their beliefs, especially in the United States. Here are some examples for you:
Christians actively seek to prevent gays from marrying or being able to adopt children. This is trying to impose their particular religious beliefs.
Christians actively seek to require the teaching of Intelligent Design - a thin veil over creationism - as a scientific theory.
Christians actively seek to limit access to abortion, often times even in the case of rape. This is trying to impose their particular religious beliefs. Sometimes even using violence.
I could go on if you'd like.
To their credit, they go about this mostly through the political process instead of deploying "morality police" that beats people. And you may argue that political expression isn't establishing a theocracy. You would be right, and it's possible to implement all those things without imposing a theocracy. But if we do implement them because they go against the sensibilities and religious beliefs of Christians then although we won't have a theocracy in name, we'll have one in practice.
I can't recall the last time Christians hijacked planes filled with innocent men, women, and children and flew them into large public buildings filled with many innocent men, women, and children.
Certainly. But that's not to say they're completely non-violent either. I can recall at least two Christians who have killed doctors who performed abortions off the top of my head. And I won't even discuss Timothy McVeigh.
I don't see Christians beheading homosexuals and stoning to death females who had the audacity to be victims of rape.
Sure, maybe they don't stone them; they only seek to prevent gays from marrying and to force women to carry their rapist's fetus to term...
I'm not religious, but I'm far more worried about muslims.
I am too - as I said, they're an imminent and much more serious threat than Christians. My point, however, was that the particulars aside, the flavor of the religion doesn't matter; it's religion that's the problem, because just about every religion seeks to spread and become widely adopted.
-
The fact that you can name a couple of dudes...actually pick out names etc as opposed to the legion of Muslims who support or actively commit atrocities daily sorta proves the point. Besides Oklahoma was political not religious. Catholics generally burn people at the stake not blow them up. If you're saying Islam is a political system masquerading as religion I'd agree.
-
The fact that you can name a couple of dudes...actually pick out names etc as opposed to the legion of Muslims who support or actively commit atrocities daily sorta proves the point. Besides Oklahoma was political not religious. Catholics generally burn people at the stake not blow them up. If you're saying Islam is a political system masquerading as religion I'd agree.
Again, you're missing my point. It's not about how many people one can name. It's about the fact that all religions seek to spread and become widely adopted. After all, what do all men with power want, if not more power?
Are Mulsims much more violent? Sure. Are they much more virulent? Sure.
But don't lie to yourself: at their core, Christians are no different - they seek to spread their religion far and wide. They're just more civilized and politically savvy.
-
It's really not. Do note, I don't think that Christians are likely to fly planes into buildings or acts as virulently as Mulsims do. But the fact of the matter is that a great many Christians, too, seek to enforce their beliefs, especially in the United States. Here are some examples for you:
Christians actively seek to prevent gays from marrying or being able to adopt children. This is trying to impose their particular religious beliefs.
Christians actively seek to require the teaching of Intelligent Design - a thin veil over creationism - as a scientific theory.
Christians actively seek to limit access to abortion, often times even in the case of rape. This is trying to impose their particular religious beliefs. Sometimes even using violence.
I could go on if you'd like.
To their credit, they go about this mostly through the political process instead of deploying "morality police" that beats people. And you may argue that political expression isn't establishing a theocracy. You would be right, and it's possible to implement all those things without imposing a theocracy. But if we do implement them because they go against the sensibilities and religious beliefs of Christians then although we won't have a theocracy in name, we'll have one in practice.
Certainly. But that's not to say they're completely non-violent either. I can recall at least two Christians who have killed doctors who performed abortions off the top of my head. And I won't even discuss Timothy McVeigh.
Sure, maybe they don't stone them; they only seek to prevent gays from marrying and to force women to carry their rapist's fetus to term...
I am too - as I said, they're an imminent and much more serious threat than Christians. My point, however, was that the particulars aside, the flavor of the religion doesn't matter; it's religion that's the problem, because just about every religion seeks to spread and become widely adopted.
None of the examples you provided involved an organized group of Christians trying to impose Christian dogma on society. You are correct that it does involve individuals using the political process.
Also, most of those examples are not religious based. And even the one that arguably is (intelligent design) has advocates who are not Christian.
Using the political process to lobby and/or vote is part of the Democratic process. It's not in the same universe as those nuts who blow themselves (and others) up over an ideology.
Serious question: do you feel threatened by people who use the political process to advance issues they believe in, if those issues are religiously motivated?
-
They're both dangerous - and for the same reasons. Any group that believes that it has "divine truth" on its side and has received a dictum to spread that belief is dangerous. The problem isn't the particular god, or the particular tenets of the religion in question, although they certainly help. The problem is unjustifiable mystical beliefs and the notion that those beliefs ought to be shoved down every non-believer's throat.
With that said, it's clear that at this time, Muslim extremism is a much more pressing issue. But let's not stick our head in the sand and pretend that only Muslims want to impose a theocracy.
Neither here nor there to what I was quoting. I don't doubt for a minute that the religious right would impose a Christian theocracy if given the chance. Doesn't change that the typical liberal mentality that I see displayed is one where Christian's are dangerous, but Muslims are not. It's utter nonsense.
-
None of the examples you provided involved an organized group of Christians trying to impose Christian dogma on society. You are correct that it does involve individuals using the political process.
Also, most of those examples are not religious based. And even the one that arguably is (intelligent design) has advocates who are not Christian.
Using the political process to lobby and/or vote is part of the Democratic process. It's not in the same universe as those nuts who blow themselves (and others) up over an ideology.
Serious question: do you feel threatened by people who use the political process to advance issues they believe in, if those issues are religiously motivated?
All those examples I mentioned are religious based. Christians are heavily against gay marriage and adoption of children by gay couples. They are against abortion - some are even against basic sexual education. They are in favor of teaching their religious dogma as a scientific theory (after covering it with the thinnest of veils). I could go on. As I said, nowhere near as virulent or extreme as Muslims. But is that really comforting? We are only taking about a difference in degrees here.
Do I feel threatened when people use the political process? Not really. I'm glad Christians are engaging in the political process and I applaud them for doing so. They deserve to be heard (even if I disagree with what they have to say).
I don't feel threatened because we have a robust Constitutional framework drafted by men smart enough to know to separate religion from politics and to not allow a majority to take away the rights of a minority by a simple majority vote.
Which is what I was getting to earlier: do you think, for a second, that the Christian wouldn't impose what he believes to be God's will on others if he could? Be careful in answering and remember your history lessons. Of course he would. But barred by the Constitution from instituting a theocracy, he will settle for implementing as much as he can.
It's the nature of the beast - men with power always seek more power. So do all these invented deities.
-
Neither here nor there to what I was quoting. I don't doubt for a minute that the religious right would impose a Christian theocracy if given the chance. Doesn't change that the typical liberal mentality that I see displayed is one where Christian's are dangerous, but Muslims are not. It's utter nonsense.
You won't get an argument from me there. Many liberals see Muslims as misunderstood and abused and oh, if only they were given a chance. No idea why they seem them like that. But then again, I don't have any idea why liberals do many of the things they do.
-
All those examples I mentioned are religious based. Christians are heavily against gay marriage and adoption of children by gay couples. They are against abortion - some are even against basic sexual education. They are in favor of teaching their religious dogma as a scientific theory (after covering it with the thinnest of veils). I could go on. As I said, nowhere near as virulent or extreme as Muslims. But is that really comforting? We are only taking about a difference in degrees here.
Do I feel threatened when people use the political process? Not really. I'm glad Christians are engaging in the political process and I applaud them for doing so. They deserve to be heard (even if I disagree with what they have to say).
I don't feel threatened because we have a robust Constitutional framework drafted by men smart enough to know to separate religion from politics and to not allow a majority to take away the rights of a minority by a simple majority vote.
Which is what I was getting to earlier: do you think, for a second, that the Christian wouldn't impose what he believes to be God's will on others if he could? Be careful in answering and remember your history lessons. Of course he would. But barred by the Constitution from instituting a theocracy, he will settle for implementing as much as he can.
It's the nature of the beast - men with power always seek more power. So do all these invented deities.
Thanks for answering.
There are lots of people who support traditional marriage for non-religious reasons. Keep in mind there was broad bipartisan support for preserving traditional marriage until very recently. Same is true of abortion. If you look at the vast numbers of restrictions on abortion and polling on restricting some forms of abortion, we're talking about a majority of the country who support these things and they're not all Christian.
The problem with your position is referring to "Christians" as if they are some homogenous group. They're not. They belong to both parties. They don't bloc vote. So no, I don't believe Christians would impose a theocracy, even assuming they did constitute some kind of organized political party.
Almost all of the Christians I know (and I know a lot) support church-state separation. You might find elements of people who believe we should gut the First Amendment, but they are an insignificant minority. You can find people who support all sorts of things that the majority of the country doesn't want.
This is a far cry from an ideology that supports Sharia law, or killing civilians. Radical Islam believes we should convert or die.
-
Certainly. But that's not to say they're completely non-violent either. I can recall at least two Christians who have killed doctors who performed abortions off the top of my head. And I won't even discuss Timothy McVeigh.
Sure, maybe they don't stone them; they only seek to prevent gays from marrying and to force women to carry their rapist's fetus to term...
I am too - as I said, they're an imminent and much more serious threat than Christians. My point, however, was that the particulars aside, the flavor of the religion doesn't matter; it's religion that's the problem, because just about every religion seeks to spread and become widely adopted.
I'm all for religious freedom - I don't seek to eliminate religion. I don't agree with religions imposing on others either though. But muslims as a whole are clearly far more dangerous. Big difference between killing homosexuals vs merely treating them as second class citizens in some ways.
Did McVeigh act out of religious fanaticism, or wasn't it more out of a hatred for big brother, the tax man, etc? He wasn't expecting 72 virgins in heaven, was he?
-
McVeigh was a non practicing catholic. He was at Waco...went down as to see what was happening as part of the militia movement. He conducted the bombing as a response to that. The Muslim religion is a cancer on the world.