I can see this is beating a dead horse, so ill just sum up what I said more succinctly and move on. Slappers personal opinion means absolutely nothing. If I claim Im president of Chile, does that simply make it so? I told you to look into what I was saying independently, instead you are relying on Slappers opinion of what a liberal is to refute my points. Kind of defeats the purpose.
I kinda agree with you both on this... I mean my word is as good as yours and Ozmo's.
Those who take part in the art of killing are killers themselves, be it the Vietnamese, the Hutus or American soldier
Translation: people who take part in war kill.==> Soldiers take part in war, so how is this any different than hating a soldier for what he does? Also,doesnt this create the moral equivalent between soldiers and terrorisits who murder innocent people?
Well, I can hate the game of soccer and not hate the players themselves. I can seriously dislike bodybuilding but have Dennis James as one of my best friends. Et cetera. And yes, when American soldiers take part in unjust wars like Viet Nam or Iraq any perceived righteousness is lost. It may not seem like it here in the states, but if you get out and read the papers from around the world you will come to know another opinion (and not a pleasant one) of "our boys".
Again, unable to connect the dots. We do not hate the soldiers, we hate those in command. We hate those who force our kids to fight like mercenaries in unjust wars who are supposedly fighting to protect our "freedoms" at home and are instead, inadvertently, protecting Big Oil's profits
Translation: If you fight war, you must fight for just reasons==> A) We dont have a draft, military service is voluntary so no one forced anyone to fight. B) Outside of waiting for us to be attacked, is there ever a just reason for war? C) Were the Vietnam war vets that returned home who were spit on and belittled "In Command"?
A) Not "forced" to fight"? Are you kidding me? I guess the endless tours of duty are just a "liberal invention". B) When all negotiations do not lead to an agreement and we are attacked. C) I'll have you know that spitting on Viet Nam veterans was not a liberal invention. Furthermore, it's a well-known fact that most of the images that we have of vets getting spat on were carefully staged events to make it seem as though it was "liberals" who were doing most of the hating, when in reality it was ALL
gringos doing the hating, but especially the WWII vets, who hated seeing American soldiers being beaten and contributed to the overall idea that it was OK to "spit" on a Nam vet.
LOL here is the dumbest thing you assert to be support for Slappers definition of what a liberal is==>
a) The preceding paragraph is YOUR idea of what liberals think. I mean, an anarchist would have a hard time understanding the totally bureaucratic world a communist government. But hey, if you keep thinking we're all alike then it must be true: Because YOU think it's true. It's your reality.-- So let me understand, this is my reality, and Slapper is right and Im wrong because he thinks so? Cmon bro- This is ass backward logic at its worst.
Well, you have a set idea of what a liberal is. You tend to think we're homogeneous in every sense, and by saying what I said I meant to discredit that same homogeneity you keep referring to. I mean, and anarchist does not believe in government (and I am an anarchist), a communist believes in total government control, we're both liberal, but not the same. Then you go on to develop a set of "common" values and pseudo-character traits that make you look like you have no idea what you're talking about. And I'd say that your biggest mistake is confusing
understanding, which is something we all liberals DO shares, with
weakness, which is what you conservatives THINK we share. Just because we do not share your if-he-looks-at-you-funny-shoot-it mentality does not mean that we can't hold our own ground. One day you're going to meet a reaaaaaally pissed anarchist (the Seattle types) that is going to "realign" your teeth if you keep saying shit like that.
a) As far as I know the catholic church is not a "culture". I mean, concept-wise you're all over the board, trying to connect things that really have little to do with liberals but moreso with atheists.
Anyone who is not a Christian can easily make a point that the right-wing media does not foster religious heterodoxy and they would be make a much more valid point than your Hollywood-hates-Christ argument.==> Religious practice and worship does not fall into a culture? What planet are you on? AND an atheist cant be a liberal? The two are mutually exclusive?
Well, religion is indeed part of a culture, but culture is (not) religion... which is what you were implying, by mistake I presume. The reason I brought this up is because you used the "Hollywood hates Christ" belief (no pun intended) that some of your kind subscribe to more often than not... which is unsupported, uncorroborated and full of hot air. I mean, The Ten Commandments won many, many Oscars. Same with The Passion of the Christ. I mean, you go and try to do the equivalent with the Muslim faith and just sit back and enjoy the social backlash.
I mean, the BIGGER problem is that Catholicism ridicules itself, along with all other religions by the way. Kids do not get sexually molested because "liberals" want the Catholic church to rape kids; they do so because of the rigidness of their religion's rules which do not allow for sexual interaction with people THEIR OWN AGE, aka "consenting adults". The second problem with the Christian faith in the USA is that they are extremely intolerant of ANY outside criticism, but especially what they mistake for "liberal criticism". The BIGGEST problem is that even though the USA is a secular nation, it is obvious that the Christian religion has begun to take a more active role in politics and is now knocking the legislative doors now getting to the point of trying to force religion into everyone's life, via praying in school, fighting against abortion, the right of homosexuals to marry. This is why they hate "liberals", because we stand in their way. All this, mind you, based on a book that was written some time around
2,000 years ago and reinterpreted a few times since then.
On a lighter note, by my "atheist" comment I was merely trying to say that what you pass as a "liberal" bias is just an "atheist" bias. It is a well-known fact that many in the Hollywood world are atheist, as well as hardcore religious types, like the Scientology or Kabalah crowd or the more traditional types, the likes of Eastwood, or Crystal etc. All of them have agreed to keep religion in the background because of the multitude of religions present in Hollywood and the fact that MOVIE MAKING is to take center stage, not religion. This is what you conservatives see as "liberal bias". Wrong, wrong, wrong.
c) We do? Really? Is this another one of your "facts"? I'm a liberal, and as far as I see it, Christians, Muslims and Jews are all the same: brainwashed time-bombs.==> So, explain to me why liberals give their overwhelming support for the PLO, Why the ultra-left wing government of Canada forces journalists who quote terror supporting Imam's to go before human rights counsels and why England has just taken steps toward Sharia law? Explain the spineless left giving into pulling the Mohammad cartoons, Explain the overwhelmingly liberal 9th circuit federal courts decision in Byron v. Eklund Union School District allowing Muslim week at a California public school.
Again, that is your interpretation of liberalism. You confuse understanding with weakness (you call it "spineless left"). I mean, I remember some artist using the image of Jesus Christ in some painting and he was literally thrown out of the country... I can't remember the country though. Madonna herself is repeatedly mocked and bashed in Christian circles because she uses some religious symbolism in some of her videos. Yet, when we parody Muslims and they complaint we call them "intolerant". Anything that deviates from the usual "hate the brownies" speech the Bush types have us so accustomed to as of lately is seen as negatively revolutionary. All they say is taken out of context. The Muslim voice is SUSPICIOUSLY absent from any opinion discussion that involves them and their struggles and no one says shit. THAT is the bigger problem.
Oz- Think what you want about Slappers opinon being the standard of liberalism. He even contradicts himself in his arguments here. You didn't prove a thing.
Where do I contradict myself?
