Since liberals "want to destroy the world"...

Post Reply New Topic

@ AceOfSpades

The argument is that part of the problem is the erosion of moral values in favor of moral relativism. That moral relativism promotes a lack of responsibility that leads to Government acting like a nanny state. Furthermore we have enough problems with tobacco and alcohol, we don't need to add any other drugs to the list.

Sounds good, but my point was more the other way 'round I guess. A fiscal conservative need not be conservative in other areas. For example religion. Specifically, I'm a Fiscal Conservative having seen the federal government in action (or inaction) for 10 years, but that doesn't predict my religion, or imply anything else about my politics. Yet so many would have you believe that the collection of positions *currently* held by each party/side/whatever should all go together somehow..

As for the nanny part, that reminds me that currently social conservatives seem to align with a lot of seemingly nanny-state stuff, such as "the war on drugs", laws that prevent gays from equal treatment, laws concerning other "vice", etc. I firmly agree that people should be responsible for themselves and our childrens tax dollars should not be used to attempt to control what people do for love or fun, if they aren't hurting people..

I agree that the war on drugs is a nanny state policy and that it's BS that so much money is being wasted and people being incarcerated, but how exactly does social conservatism prevent gays from equal treatment? Gays are socially prosecuted against, not legally or institutionally.

People's addiction to drugs may result in harm to other people especially if one is say driving while they are high.

Sadly, despite spending trillions and locking up tons of otherwise law abiding citizens, "the list" is already slap full of other drugs. Terrible ghastly drugs like Meth that became popular because it cold be made locally unlike the much more fun and statistically safer cocaine. We can't afford to keep throwing money down the abyss just to create a black market and all the crime and other BS that comes with it.

Gays are not allowed to get married. That alone is huge and unacceptable. My tax dollars should not be spent fighting out some civil union BS to give gays some kind of "separate but equal" asset/spousal rights" BS when we could just let them do what you and I get to do, get married to the one we love, and be done with it. There are also many laws pertaining to sex designed to make "gay sex" illegal. For example sodomy was illegal here in GA, although I think that has changed. People were prosecuted for it here. My tax dollars paid for the state to prosecute somebody for sticking their peepee in the wrong hole. Even if the state should be in the business of telling me what part of my wife I can stick my peepee into, which is ludicrous to me, We can't afford it.


It's already illegal to drive while high or drunk. Laws already exist to cover all the bad things addicts do.

"Laws already exist to cover all the bad things addicts do."

Let me count the ways....

You need to argue defensibly. I have a strong tendency to avoid "all" "never" and other absolutisms - it lets the debate get snippy. You should have seen my grandpapa visiting - if you were wise you kept out of the way and said nothing. He would just snap on the lightest careless utterance."

Safer to say, "There already exist laws that apply to many of the harmful things addicts do." While not completely grandpa-proof, "many" is loose enough and "harmful" definable enough to ward off the most withering waves of scorn.

The Nazi's were conservatives, i.e. right wing fascists. Pro-war is necessarily a conservative viewpoint

How did you ascertain that every(or that being pro-war is strictly a conservative viewpoint) conservative is pro-war? And how did you come to the conclusion that Nazi's are conservative?

Nazi = National Socialist German Workers Party . Do you see the word "socialist". I do.

The Nazis were radical and they overthrew the Weimar Republic, which was a burgoise republic.

ruveyn

" Pro-war is necessarily a conservative viewpoint"

Say WHAT!???! !

Say we forget about looking at history, sat we can even agree defining consevative:

Say me once, WHAT exactly does war conserve?

Prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor there was a resistance to the U.S. involving itself in the wars brewing in Europe. This was primarily a conservative thing. The Republicans really did not want the U.S. to go war. This changed abruptly when the war came to us.

ruveyn

" Pro-war is necessarily a conservative viewpoint"

What a sweeping generalization. Some conservatives don't want the US to play world police and would rather deal with issues within their own homeland, while others see war as a necessity. And besides, just because you hate war it doesn't make you a good person. I consider a soldier willing to make a big sacrifice for freedom a much better person than some p**** who wants everyone else to do the dirty work so that person could have his/her cake and eat it too.

It's like those people who say "f**k the police!" and would dial 911 in a heartbeat should the tables turn on em.

Guys it is just another Saul Allinsky style attack to paint Conservatives as somehow being unintelligent. Quite frankly it is easy to see and essentially trolling at this point.

BIG GUBMINT TAKIN MAH FREEDOM!! !! !! ! YEEAAAHHH GIT YER GUNS GIT YER BEER, HAVE ALL THE GOD HATIN GAYS, WETBACKS AND AMERICA HATIN HIPPIES STAND IN LINE AND LET ER RIP!! !!

To understand the links between modern liberalism and Marxism, I think the first thing to note is that, while there are several people who go along with liberalism for convenience, or without thinking, or for tactical reasons, true-believer left-liberals are almost always White. Then we can examine some of their beliefs.

1. Left-liberals will often blame Third World poverty on the legacy of European colonization. The same left-liberals will later say that the North African Muslim colonization of Spain was the greatest gift European civilization ever received.

2. Left-liberals will also often blame the troubles in Africa on the “artificial” states created by colonization, which has forced different ethnic groups together, leading to inevitable conflict. The same left-liberals will later say that ethnic and racial diversity is an absolute boon to the West, and makes us all stronger and happier!

3. Left-liberals claim to care so deeply about the plight of minorities and about how difficult life must be for them. But tell them about the plight of the White minorities in Zimbabwe and South Africa, or tell them that Whites are a minority in world terms, or tell them that Whites are heading for minority status in America, Britain, France etc and they don’t want to hear it.

4. Left-liberals love to invoke the principle of natural selection when arguing with fundamentalist Christians. “Nature does not care” they will say. These same liberals will later claim that nature has somehow conspired to make the races of mankind (i.e., genetically distinct population groups subject to different selection pressures) exactly equal in terms of their mental and behavioural characteristics!

5. Left-liberals will one day appear to support nationalism and the next day appear to oppose it. If it is nationalism directed against their own people, they will support it; if it is nationalism that supports their own people (or of similar people), they will oppose it. If a certain nationalism can be used to weaken a relatively large nation, they will more often than not support it; if it can be used to strengthen that same relatively large nation, they will more often than not oppose it. English liberals will sympathize with IRA terrorists but oppose any hint of British nationalism. European liberals will usually instinctively sympathize with the numerically smaller Muslim Kosovans rather than with the numerically larger Christian Serbs. White liberals the world over treat nationalists like Gandhi as a hero, but react to news of nationalism within White societies with horror.

Left-liberals claim to be all about reason and logic, but really their main motivation is just a destructive impulse towards their own society, nation and race (because – as already described – what they really want is a world where they can be “looked up to for their wisdom instead of despised for their puniness”).

Once you see this, the parallels with Marxism become obvious. A Marxist will contradict themselves any number of times, because to a Marxist, whatever undermines “the system” and advances the revolution at any time is by definition good, true and moral. The main difference, I suppose, is that Marxists know what they are doing and liberals mostly do not.



That might well be true. The high IQ, low common sense, effete intellectual in his ivory tower is a well-founded stereotype. In times past such people were wisely kept away from political influence.