Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Why is being liberal bad?


  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#31    CrimsonKing

CrimsonKing

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,372 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DarkSide of TheMoon

  • "It does not require a majority to prevail,but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds" Sam Adams

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:45 AM

View PostZaphod222, on 31 January 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

I do not think that your long list of talking points has much to do with the things that opponents of the "liberal" party in the US object to. Such as ever-growing taxation, government interference, social engineering in the name of misguided "political correctness", massive deficit spending, voter fraud, and so on and so on.

It seems to me that you are trying to attack a strawman which you made up yourself.

I have no ties that bind me to a party,i just look at things as they are.My only other problem than stated is abortion,im not against a womans right to choose but me myself i could never take away something i created.I am not religious but if something comes into being it deserves the right to live or die on its own,whichever nature chooses not me.

"If it is not advantageous,do not move.If objectives can not be attained,do not employ the army.Unless endangered do not engage in warfare.The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger.The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration.When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life." Sun-Tzu

#32    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,246 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:51 AM

View PostCrimsonKing, on 31 January 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

I have no ties that bind me to a party,i just look at things as they are.My only other problem than stated is abortion,im not against a womans right to choose but me myself i could never take away something i created.I am not religious but if something comes into being it deserves the right to live or die on its own,whichever nature chooses not me.
There are two issues here that we need to try to keep separate -- our personal moral and ethical choices and what should be against the law.

Abortion is to me one of those.  Like with you, I would never have an abortion (being a man that will never be a decision I have to face, but I know what I would do were I a pregnant woman).  However, I neither judge it in others nor think it should be illegal.  It is not the government's job to protect morals.  It only interferes when it has an overruling public interest.


#33    CrimsonKing

CrimsonKing

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,372 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DarkSide of TheMoon

  • "It does not require a majority to prevail,but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds" Sam Adams

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:08 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 31 January 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

There are two issues here that we need to try to keep separate -- our personal moral and ethical choices and what should be against the law.

Abortion is to me one of those.  Like with you, I would never have an abortion (being a man that will never be a decision I have to face, but I know what I would do were I a pregnant woman).  However, I neither judge it in others nor think it should be illegal.  It is not the government's job to protect morals.  It only interferes when it has an overruling public interest.

I totally agree

"If it is not advantageous,do not move.If objectives can not be attained,do not employ the army.Unless endangered do not engage in warfare.The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger.The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration.When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life." Sun-Tzu

#34    CrimsonKing

CrimsonKing

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,372 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DarkSide of TheMoon

  • "It does not require a majority to prevail,but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds" Sam Adams

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:23 AM

View PostCrimsonKing, on 31 January 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

I totally agree

The only thing i need to make clear on my agreement is if your old enough to make it you are old enough for the responsibility to raise it or abort it on your own.Not with my tax dollars!

"If it is not advantageous,do not move.If objectives can not be attained,do not employ the army.Unless endangered do not engage in warfare.The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger.The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration.When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life." Sun-Tzu

#35    Realm

Realm

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,055 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere in our spiral galaxy

  • "The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."
    Albert Einstein

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:26 AM

Because Rush Limbaugh wouldn't have a thing to talk about without liberals.

Those that mistake my meekness for weakness, suddenly find themselves destroyed.

#36    CrimsonKing

CrimsonKing

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,372 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DarkSide of TheMoon

  • "It does not require a majority to prevail,but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds" Sam Adams

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:29 AM

View PostRealm, on 31 January 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

Because Rush Limbaugh wouldn't have a thing to talk about without liberals.

Hahaha rush is a bit of a hysterical whacko,never forget his pill problems when he was almost passing out mid way through his sentences lol

"If it is not advantageous,do not move.If objectives can not be attained,do not employ the army.Unless endangered do not engage in warfare.The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger.The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration.When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life." Sun-Tzu

#37    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,595 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:04 AM

View Postgreen_dude777, on 31 January 2013 - 12:37 AM, said:

I think one of the biggest reasons, in addition to the point Wearer of Hats has made, is people really don't understand the two labels. Liberal and Conservative are terms that are relative to each other (I have been labeled as one or the other depending on the topic).  People like to create a 'black and white' view of things.

At the minimum, there should at least be 4 differently labeled groups, at least in the U.S.

1) Fiscally liberal, socially liberal
2) Fiscally liberal, socially conservative
3) Fiscally conservative, socially conservative
4) Fiscally conservative, socially liberal
Check #4 for me, please.

Many contemporary "conservatives" we hear about in the media fall into category #2 incidentally.  Just because they may want to end food stamps, they've proven themselves to be voracious spenders on their own special interests so finding a true fiscal conservative is exceedingly rare these days, with the labels we have to use comprising these four quadrants.   Incidentally, #3 on the list is self-defeating and tends toward impossible, because it takes bigger government to be socially conservative and yet requires smaller government to be fiscally conservative.   But there are a large troupe of characters out there playing the ruse on the dupes who keep voting them into office anyway.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#38    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,595 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:13 AM

View Postbacca, on 30 January 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

Why is being liberal a bad thing? When did caring about something bigger then oneself become something to be made fun of? Why did believing that all Americans both gay and straight should have the same equal rights become such a problem for people? How do people justify preventing gay marriage when it has nothing to do with them? What is wrong with caring that my great grand kids can breath clean air and drink clean water? Is waiting to help the planet really something that should be put off? Why did this become something that can wait to be fixed? And even if it is only a slight possibility that we could help, shouldn't we try? Why am I the bad guy because I feel that guns are not always the best option? Is there not something to be said about the idea that some people shouldn't have guns? Why is it that because I like knowing that there are kids eating tonight because they have food stamps I am somehow a person that likes handouts? What is wrong with helping people who need help? Why should anyone feel ashamed because they needed help and asked for it? Why should I feel bad about needing healthcare and being happy that finally I'll be able to get some? Why are we filling our jails with people on marijuana charges and not legalizing it nationwide? Where is the data that it is harmful? Would resources not be better spent on something else? Why am I wrong to not want any religion in my child’s school? Why do some people seem to think that bringing religious beliefs into schools is fair to students who don't share the beliefs? Should public schools not care about all students? Why do some people feel so superior that what they believe is more important than the rights of other people? Who came up with the idea that it was a good thing to try and tell women what they can and can't do in their doctors office with their own bodies? And why is this still an issue that anyone thinks they have a say in? So why is being liberal a bad thing? Why is caring about other people, ALL other people and not just those that fit into a specific group not a good thing? Is it so hard to except that there are ideas, views and beliefs that are different and not harmful? Why can't some people seem to understand that being different and not trying to make everyone believe the same thing, live the same way and want the same things does not make them bad?
I don't think that liberalism is bad.  I think liberalism as a political ideology is all good.  If you look up liberalism in the encyclopedia, there's a lot there for me to like and nothing not to.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.[3][4][5][6][7]
Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property[8] and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with democracy and/or republicanism and the rule of law.

What's wrong with being liberal is that it doesn't know what liberalism is.  It redefined it, ate its own young, betrayed its own better sense, and made a mockery of everything it once stood for.  These liberals we have in office today don't even deserve the label we give them.  We should call them what they really are - Statists.   But even Statists are well intentioned; they just have a morally and financially bankrupt way of getting what they want.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#39    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,396 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:31 AM

Not so long ago (and I am talking 50s and 60s, when America was at its strongest) liberal was not considered bad, as all knew enough about history to know that without liberals there would have been no US of A but just another British colony.

It started to be an insult when a certain group began to divide the American society into the "good Americans" (Republicans and/or extreme right Bible Thumpers) and the "bad Americans" (Liberals and other non-Republicans). And while we must conclude that they were quite successful at that (in fact there is a minority not ashamed for calling of the division of the country into the "good" and the other "America") it never ceases to amaze me how much of what made America strong is reneged by that same group that initiated the division while waving flags and claiming to be patriots.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#40    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,396 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:32 AM

View PostYamato, on 31 January 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:


What's wrong with being liberal is that it doesn't know what liberalism is.  It redefined it, ate its own young, betrayed its own better sense, and made a mockery of everything it once stood for.  These liberals we have in office today don't even deserve the label we give them.  We should call them what they really are - Statists.   But even Statists are well intentioned; they just have a morally and financially bankrupt way of getting what they want.

A liberal who does not know may be called a liberal by those wanting to insult him, but he can't be one as per the second paragraph in your definition.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#41    bacca

bacca

    Puppet master of Vision

  • Member
  • 2,424 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • Allasourous
    Jan 2003-Sept 25 2005
    Have a SUPER SPARKLEY DAY

Posted 31 January 2013 - 01:10 PM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 31 January 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

You understand what you want. I don't think you're here to change your mind. I think you're here to show liberalism in a brighter light albeit with a woe-is-me tone. There is a dark side to liberalism though you are probably naively unaware. That is that liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent. Liberal ran cities are drenched in debt and violence and crime and unemployment and people who can't live without the government. Like Detroit.

I do understand what I want, and I NEVER said I wanted to change my mind about anything, what I would like is some rational, valid reason why some people feel what I mentioned is wrong....

I still have not seen a way that the majority of what I mentioned will cost the tax payers anything (although it makes no difference if any person agrees or not, there are things that tax money is spent on that many people don't want already).

The idea that gay couples should be happy with what people give them, civil unions, is insulting, it is this idea that gets people upset, why should a group of people have to settle for different wording? The word marriage is not religious, you get a marriage license from the state, and if we are equal in this country then those who are against gay marriage should simply not have one! I would like to know what people who are against it are so afraid of?

I personally don't like the idea of the government in my personal life, my personal choices of who to love and marry, if i want to have a child, if I want my child to learn about religion etc, are personal, have no effect on anyone else and cost tax payers nothing, so what is the issue? Why do people work to stop these things?

Commit random acts of kindness


Careful what you wish for, you just might get it!!!

#42    Orcseeker

Orcseeker

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,764 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 31 January 2013 - 02:19 PM

View Postbacca, on 31 January 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:



I do understand what I want, and I NEVER said I wanted to change my mind about anything, what I would like is some rational, valid reason why some people feel what I mentioned is wrong....

I still have not seen a way that the majority of what I mentioned will cost the tax payers anything (although it makes no difference if any person agrees or not, there are things that tax money is spent on that many people don't want already).

The idea that gay couples should be happy with what people give them, civil unions, is insulting, it is this idea that gets people upset, why should a group of people have to settle for different wording? The word marriage is not religious, you get a marriage license from the state, and if we are equal in this country then those who are against gay marriage should simply not have one! I would like to know what people who are against it are so afraid of?

I personally don't like the idea of the government in my personal life, my personal choices of who to love and marry, if i want to have a child, if I want my child to learn about religion etc, are personal, have no effect on anyone else and cost tax payers nothing, so what is the issue? Why do people work to stop these things?

The word marriage means money and business these days. The sanctity of it has been destroyed by both. I mentioned earlier, these homophobes do not understand, have insecurities (possibly homosexual themselves) or simply fear "change" (where really the change they are afraid of won't affect their lives in the least).

I'm afraid when it comes to teaching your child religion without choice, in a time where they are impressionable I don't believe is right and almost child abuse to a degree. The hypocrisy which goes on in that area is abundant. Satanists ( actually not as violent or sacrificial as some tend to believe) get demonised By Christians and tell the authorities to take their children away from them because they believe they aren't being brought up correctly, utter stupidity and ignorance. Both are forcing their children into their own beliefs.

If I have a child I'd give them an unbiased option of whatever they wanted. It was interesting to see how all the young childrens institutions around my time were all geared to spreading the word of God. An effective measure on such impressionable minds. Quite disgusting and backward when I look back on it now.


#43    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:33 PM

View Postbacca, on 31 January 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:



I do understand what I want, and I NEVER said I wanted to change my mind about anything, what I would like is some rational, valid reason why some people feel what I mentioned is wrong....

I still have not seen a way that the majority of what I mentioned will cost the tax payers anything (although it makes no difference if any person agrees or not, there are things that tax money is spent on that many people don't want already).

The idea that gay couples should be happy with what people give them, civil unions, is insulting, it is this idea that gets people upset, why should a group of people have to settle for different wording? The word marriage is not religious, you get a marriage license from the state, and if we are equal in this country then those who are against gay marriage should simply not have one! I would like to know what people who are against it are so afraid of?

I personally don't like the idea of the government in my personal life, my personal choices of who to love and marry, if i want to have a child, if I want my child to learn about religion etc, are personal, have no effect on anyone else and cost tax payers nothing, so what is the issue? Why do people work to stop these things?
The ideas aren't as bad as the policies that try to enforce them....

...uhm, at the cost of our tax money. How the heck do you propose to pay for all this help? If you're thinking charity I'm right with you but charity isn't the liberal way these days. Charity is voluntary. The current liberal MO these days is akin to Robin Hoods. Take from others to give to others. The key word there is Take and it's not right to take.

I won't get into the marriage deal. I have mixed feelings about it but mostly I really don't care. It's not a concern when considering my vote.

If you don't like the idea of government in your life, guess what? You're not liberal. Some people work for things and some work against things. Some of each are righteous and moral, some of each are just the opposite. From a fiscally conservatives viewpoint , liberalism gets bad when no matter how broke we are they insist on sometimes crazy sometimes not crazy social programs but either way they insist on them no matter the cost and no matter the abuse and those who call out that bs are deemed several slanderous descriptions from a standard liberal play book.

Posted Image

#44    Bama13

Bama13

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 31 January 2013 - 07:21 PM

View Postbacca, on 30 January 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

Why is being liberal a bad thing? When did caring about something bigger then oneself become something to be made fun of? Why did believing that all Americans both gay and straight should have the same equal rights become such a problem for people? How do people justify preventing gay marriage when it has nothing to do with them? What is wrong with caring that my great grand kids can breath clean air and drink clean water? Is waiting to help the planet really something that should be put off? Why did this become something that can wait to be fixed? And even if it is only a slight possibility that we could help, shouldn't we try? Why am I the bad guy because I feel that guns are not always the best option? Is there not something to be said about the idea that some people shouldn't have guns? Why is it that because I like knowing that there are kids eating tonight because they have food stamps I am somehow a person that likes handouts? What is wrong with helping people who need help? Why should anyone feel ashamed because they needed help and asked for it? Why should I feel bad about needing healthcare and being happy that finally I'll be able to get some? Why are we filling our jails with people on marijuana charges and not legalizing it nationwide? Where is the data that it is harmful? Would resources not be better spent on something else? Why am I wrong to not want any religion in my child’s school? Why do some people seem to think that bringing religious beliefs into schools is fair to students who don't share the beliefs? Should public schools not care about all students? Why do some people feel so superior that what they believe is more important than the rights of other people? Who came up with the idea that it was a good thing to try and tell women what they can and can't do in their doctors office with their own bodies? And why is this still an issue that anyone thinks they have a say in? So why is being liberal a bad thing? Why is caring about other people, ALL other people and not just those that fit into a specific group not a good thing? Is it so hard to except that there are ideas, views and beliefs that are different and not harmful? Why can't some people seem to understand that being different and not trying to make everyone believe the same thing, live the same way and want the same things does not make them bad?

There is nothing wrong with being a liberal, but voting for a liberal is very bad thing. :innocent:

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#45    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,595 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 January 2013 - 07:47 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 31 January 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

A liberal who does not know may be called a liberal by those wanting to insult him, but he can't be one as per the second paragraph in your definition.
Both paragraphs would be more akin to a Classical Liberal, which is what I identify with.   If the word has negative connotations to be used as a political insult between two political parties that don't have diddly squat worth fighting about,  it's a result of poor governance.  The word conservative causes many people to cringe in kind.   These are all false labels to me because there is no reliable interpretation to count on when people are throwing them around.   Republicans are some of the worst liberals in the government.   They're liberals - in denial.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users