Disagree with 'liberals' on anything any you are thrown out

[LoneLaugher]

...liberals are advocates of inclusion and practice tolerance...

You see stuff like this, you shake your head, and you realize there is nothing you can say.
.

Are you claiming liberals are less tolerant of gays than conservatives? ...for example?

Look out! Prepare to be told that you defend extreme Muslims.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...liberals are advocates of inclusion and practice tolerance...

You see stuff like this, you shake your head, and you realize there is nothing you can say.
.

Are you claiming liberals are less tolerant of gays than conservatives? ...for example?

I've made my point. Over and over and over. It's not important to me that you either agree or understand.

But the reactions to my posts by the Regressive Leftists here are always a good sign.
.

If you were truly as tolerant as you pretend to be, you would demonstrate it by being tolerant of these people that you have labeled 'regressive leftists'.

Instead, you obsessively campaign to attack them, ridicule them, demean them, all done to effectively shut them up. Every word you speak about these people is an expression of intolerance.

In that regard you rank as one of the most intolerant posters on this forum.

 

[Mac1958]

Get a group of Libs together (or Cons), and the person taking positions that run counter to the prevailing ideology will be ostracized. The Herd Mentality. Human Nature.

Bingo, and that's why the zealots on both ends are the problem.

For these people, politics is about Left vs. Right.

For the rest of us, it may as well be the narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues on both sides vs. a majority of the country.

But, agreed, trying to communicate with them is usually wasted effort.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Get a group of Libs together (or Cons), and the person taking positions that run counter to the prevailing ideology will be ostracized. The Herd Mentality. Human Nature.

Bingo, and that's why the zealots on both ends are the problem.

For these people, politics is about Left vs. Right.

For the rest of us, it may as well be the narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues on both sides vs. a majority of the country.

But, agreed, trying to communicate with them is usually wasted effort.
.

Did it ever occur to you that some people might take 'extreme' views on an issue because that is what they truly believe?

 

[emilynghiem]

This started many years ago and I considered myself quite liberal when I compared myself to many conservatives but the minute I happen to defend anything that sounded remotely conservative for even the slightest reason I was immediately thrown out of the group. They didn't hold a vote or anything but more just started labeling me as 'conservative' simply because I had no issue with creationist themselves. I didn't agree with them but I didn't care if they believed what they believed. I came to the conclusion that 'liberals' only care about one thing and that is the socialist agenda in this country and the more they did the less tolerant they became. I don't know if anyone else has had this experience of being expelled from the democratic party simply because you disagreed with them on anything at all.

Those are progressives you're describing. We liberals don't care. We just want everyone to do well, for all to have good health, and make a fair wage. Whatever someone chooses to believe is their business so long as they don't try and make me believe it. Progressives on the other hand are about power, the collection of it, and the abuse of it against those they don't like.

Progressives are scum.

Interesting westwall I've been using liberals to mean the ones following along with the politicized corporate Democrats,
and progressives to mean the independent Democrats and Greens trying to set up the right programs directly instead of relying on govt which isn't happening.

I was told progressive actually came from conservative types imposing reforms.
Since I align more with Constitutionalists seeking to reform govt by enforcing
common principles to streamline and reorganize resources, I thought this progressive
label better fits me, as most of the active Constitutionalists I find are conservative.
However I don't believe in coercing people either by political or religious groups, but believe in making policies and reforms by consent of parties affected. So that part is more Green.
For the inclusion of diversity and prochoice position, this aligns with Democrats, as well
as helping the poor and disadvantaged "minority interests." With enforcing the Constitution to check govt, that aligns with Libertarians and Republicans. I can't find that with most Democrats.

I am a liberal. And you guys can keep trying to divide us until it is meaningless.............for you. Classification, classification, classification.

OK Disir and westwall so which way are we going to refer to the REAL liberals/progressives and the COMMERCIAL/CORPORATE sellouts?
Since people complain more about "liberals pushing social agenda through govt" I was using Liberal for that type, the Clinton type that's really corporate
but CALLED "liberal" in the media so everyone CALLS them liberals.

Fewer people call the REAL liberal/left movement by progressive which really came from a conservative reform movement that was seen as rather oppressive.
But when I meet "liberal left" activists who are really pushing on the GRASSROOTS level, that is the right way, to set up your own programs
and then it trickles up to the govt by catching with people and spreading by free choice and voluntary adoption of better solutions.
So I was using "progressive" to mean the REAL left.

Disir if you object to dividing people by "denomination" what do you call the two groups:
1. one is like how the Conservatives complain about -- the sheep who follow the leader who imposes liberal BELIEFS through govt as MANDATES FORCED ON the Public
2. the other are the REAL meaning and purpose, but it's not done by imposing unconstitutionally, it's implemented by consensus and INCLUSION where
people of all diverse groups CHOOSE to collaborate by free will and reason, by proving SECULARLY these solutions work better (not faith based, imposed like a religion)

A. First, do we all agree there are the corporate sell out types that push agenda for power and
it goes against the principles of prochoice and inclusion of diversity by coercion/exclusion
And this is the public image created by imposing liberal BELIEFS on others who disagree and contest these social policies as unconstitutional
B. versus people who LIVE and IMPLEMENT the liberal principles by example (and don't force it on others against their will by bullying)

Do we agree there are two types?
And do we need a term to distinguish these two?
Thanks!

A. Do we agree that people that use divisional tactics to place people in tribes and groups are out to profit and obtain power?
You mean propaganda and shills? You know, like pretending a business is like "artistic expression" to attempt to make it a violation of rights? Like repeating it makes it any true-er. Do you know choosy moms choose Jiff?

We have names for these tactics. It's the same tactic used by the right to label people as unAmerican or pejoratively using the term Socialist and the left uses racist, homophobic and Socialist. It's propaganda, Emily. That's what you call it.

I get it. You're mad. It isn't necessary to reinvent the wheel. The only way to fight it is to follow the money.(Usually to Delaware where there is a plethora of shell companies, but I digress.) You either buy into the propaganda or you don't. The more you try to reclassify individuals the more you play right into their hands. Divide, divide, divide and hide behind a party like the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and, apparently, the Constitutional party.

No Disir you DON'T get it I'm not mad, I'm accepting of people's beliefs.
If people have different denominations, even within a party, that's NOT going to change.
I ask to INCLUDE people's beliefs AS THEY ARE. I believe in ISONOMY -- if people are going to be equal in rights and responsibilities, we NEED to organize by like beliefs so we can RESPECT each other's LIMITS. That's just natural, like organizing by State, and letting people govern themselves that way. Then put all the States together to represent the collective union.
That's does supplant the laws per state, just because each one is localized.

So sure, if people BELIEVE in using majority rule to impose THEIR beliefs on the beliefs of others,
whether left over right as in ACA/right to health mandates
or right over left as in right to life regulations or restrictions, let's be honest about that.
How can we include that instead of reject it. If Nevada has legalized prostitution, can't that group keep that and not impose it on other states; and if so, why not organize by parties?

Where do you get that I am using division to reject?
I'm using it to INCLUDE like finding out who you've got in a band or a choir.
You don't just label everyone the same voice or instrument: you map out who
is in the tenor or bass section, the soprano or alto so you can organize your choir to sing in harmony!

Yes it takes "dividing in groups" but it's to align people so you can work with EVERYONE.

Do you get it now, Disir?
I'm a Constitutionalist, and believe in equal INCLUSION to protect everyone's beliefs equally,
so I am ASKING what beliefs people identify with, so I can INCLUDE not reject them!

NOTE: What makes me "mad" is when people bully and exclude each other
and cause the other side to do that, so it blocks democratic due process
and the right to petition for EVERYONE, like how our courts get backlogged for months or years
because too many people didn't resolve conflicts. Or DOMA or ACA get passed and don't
get corrected because people won't sit down and find a mutual way to write out the laws they both WANT.

Disir what I think may happen here, is a third "unofficial house" or network of reps by party, similar to the Senate, where all people can organize representation per party and per issue. Just because it INCLUDES all parties doesn't mean it is RESTRICTED to that. But just allow citizens to make sure all sides of a conflict over beliefs is Represented and Included in MEDIATION to spell out both Consensus points and points of separation. Lay out all the positions and make sure everyone is represented. Then present these lists of DOs and DONTs to the OFFICIAL Congress and Govt as Blueprints for what laws/rulings are consistent with public interest, beliefs and consent on issues that involve BELIEFS that people aren't going to change. Just spell them out along with Agreed solutions, and work WITH govt to write out neutral or inclusive laws/rulings that we already AGREE with so no overreaches go unfixed. ALL objections and concerns are included and resolved in advance, BEFORE writing proposing or passing such laws/reforms/rulings. If we don't agree, then spell that out where and why groups object, and what we propose to separate or resolve those differences in BELIEFS.

 

[JakeStarkey]

...liberals are advocates of inclusion and practice tolerance...

You see stuff like this, you shake your head, and you realize there is nothing you can say.
.

Are you claiming liberals are less tolerant of gays than conservatives? ...for example?

I've made my point. Over and over and over. It's not important to me that you either agree or understand.

But the reactions to my posts by the Regressive Leftists here are always a good sign.
.

Translation: in other words NYC, you have kicked Mac's ass, hard.

 

[emilynghiem]

Get a group of Libs together (or Cons), and the person taking positions that run counter to the prevailing ideology will be ostracized. The Herd Mentality. Human Nature.

Bingo, and that's why the zealots on both ends are the problem.

For these people, politics is about Left vs. Right.

For the rest of us, it may as well be the narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues on both sides vs. a majority of the country.

But, agreed, trying to communicate with them is usually wasted effort.
.

Dear Mac1958 Can't we include the INPUT from the people who are onesided and only project object or reject? True, some people have a leadership or communication style that is closed to interaction. But that is NOT a crime deserving of losing liberties and right to due process: such people still are citizens with rights to equal representation and protections.

How can we represent these people in the democratic process? Instead of punishing them with censorship and robbing them of rights for their inability to communicate and resolve conflicts they can't help either?

Wouldn't it help to ALIGN by beliefs, so even if they can't communicate openly but only shout yes or no, they have REPS who understand and represent that who CAN come to the table and work out issues. And take it back to their group for approval YES or NO until objections are resolved and they get a YES.

See attached diagram on 5 communication styles, where ALL are included and accommodated in mediation
in order to reach a decision by consensus

•Avoidance
+ If emotions flare, taking time to think before reacting
- If too passive, appears to ignore continuing problems

•Competitive
+ Immediate reaction, effective in emergency crisis
- No room for competing Authority in hierarchical pecking order

Rewards Bullying and Territorial Tactics, Turf Wars, Dominate Pack Mentality

•Accommodating
+ Provides harmony and stability
- If too passive, managers/leaders are taken advantage of as “too soft”

Poor for Defense if it encourages Aggression to overstep and test boundaries

•Compromising
+ Used when goals don’t match between parties exercising equal power
- If Authority in hierarchy is not equal, leads to coercion and dominance

•Collaborative
+ Used when All Parties open to explore needs and alternatives

- Fails where perception of controlling Authority is unequal between Competitive and Compromising approaches

NOTE: Conflict Resolution and Consensus-based Govt might actively include and feature more Women and Minority leaders with experience in “Collective” approaches

 

[Mac1958]

...liberals are advocates of inclusion and practice tolerance...

You see stuff like this, you shake your head, and you realize there is nothing you can say.
.

Are you claiming liberals are less tolerant of gays than conservatives? ...for example?

I've made my point. Over and over and over. It's not important to me that you either agree or understand.

But the reactions to my posts by the Regressive Leftists here are always a good sign.
.

Translation: in other words NYC, you have kicked Mac's ass, hard.

The Regressive Lefties gotta stick together.

Good.
.

 

[emilynghiem]

...liberals are advocates of inclusion and practice tolerance...

You see stuff like this, you shake your head, and you realize there is nothing you can say.
.

Are you claiming liberals are less tolerant of gays than conservatives? ...for example?

I've made my point. Over and over and over. It's not important to me that you either agree or understand.

But the reactions to my posts by the Regressive Leftists here are always a good sign.
.

Translation: in other words NYC, you have kicked Mac's ass, hard.

The Regressive Lefties gotta stick together.

Good.
.

Dear Mac1958 Don't we have to agree on groupings and labels
before we file people in them?
We don't want to give a clarinet flute music to play just because they are both woodwinds.
Maybe that clarinet plays the same key as the trumpets.

This isn't punishment like forcing someone into detention so they can't play in the band.
This is about organizing who is in tune or plays which part
so we can figure out the sectionals and map out the score and symphony.

 

[RandallFlagg]

This started many years ago and I considered myself quite liberal when I compared myself to many conservatives but the minute I happen to defend anything that sounded remotely conservative for even the slightest reason I was immediately thrown out of the group. They didn't hold a vote or anything but more just started labeling me as 'conservative' simply because I had no issue with creationist themselves. I didn't agree with them but I didn't care if they believed what they believed. I came to the conclusion that 'liberals' only care about one thing and that is the socialist agenda in this country and the more they did the less tolerant they became. I don't know if anyone else has had this experience of being expelled from the democratic party simply because you disagreed with them on anything at all.

When I first retired from the Army - I applied for a job (Corrections Officer) with my County. They called me in for an interview and the very first question out of the interviewers mouth was "Are you a registered democrat"? I said "No, I'm not currently registered as anything" which was true. HE told me that I had the job - but not until I registered as a Democrat. I went down and registered Republican and got a job elsewhere.

Screw 'em.

 

[Norman]

This started many years ago and I considered myself quite liberal when I compared myself to many conservatives but the minute I happen to defend anything that sounded remotely conservative for even the slightest reason I was immediately thrown out of the group. They didn't hold a vote or anything but more just started labeling me as 'conservative' simply because I had no issue with creationist themselves. I didn't agree with them but I didn't care if they believed what they believed. I came to the conclusion that 'liberals' only care about one thing and that is the socialist agenda in this country and the more they did the less tolerant they became. I don't know if anyone else has had this experience of being expelled from the democratic party simply because you disagreed with them on anything at all.

Liberal regressive mostly seem to care about white genocide these days. They literally believe Muslim culture is as good as the western culture. Therefore it's not surprising terrorism is a non-issue.

Let's be clear it's the ideology of failure through lies, manipulation, parasitism, theft and lack of principles. The only thing they worship besides big coercive government is power.

 

[BluesLegend]

So progressive liberals are scumbag filth, yeah I already knew that.

 

[emilynghiem]

This started many years ago and I considered myself quite liberal when I compared myself to many conservatives but the minute I happen to defend anything that sounded remotely conservative for even the slightest reason I was immediately thrown out of the group. They didn't hold a vote or anything but more just started labeling me as 'conservative' simply because I had no issue with creationist themselves. I didn't agree with them but I didn't care if they believed what they believed. I came to the conclusion that 'liberals' only care about one thing and that is the socialist agenda in this country and the more they did the less tolerant they became. I don't know if anyone else has had this experience of being expelled from the democratic party simply because you disagreed with them on anything at all.

Liberal regressive mostly seem to care about white genocide these days. They literally believe Muslim culture is as good as the western culture. Therefore it's not surprising terrorism is a non-issue.

Let's be clear it's the ideology of failure through lies, manipulation, parasitism, theft and lack of principles. The only thing they worship besides big coercive government is power.

OK Norman and Mac1958
It seems you are calling the corporate political "liberals" that "everyone complains about"
the REGRESSIVE liberals who do the very thing they oppose: bully, obstruct, censor, impose beliefs in an authoritarian, totalitarian or otherwise "fascist" style then complain the other side is doing that so they are just reacting in defense. Is this right?

Then we have PROGRESSIVE types that are still open to represent the liberal views of inclusion of diversity and protection of minority interests such as women and prochoice that get lost to patriarchal politics/bullying.
(where some people were calling THIS the real liberals)

And the LIBERAL base that will follow along with either the REGRESSIVES who are public and external
or the PROGRESSIVES who work on the grassroots level and organize internally to maintain inclusion and real democratic process.

Now some people are using PROGRESSIVE to mean the REGRESSIVES
and then they use LIBERAL for what I termed PROGRESSIVE in the MIDDLE.

Can we use REGRESSIVE to mean they REJECT and EXCLUDE the opposition
and "impose choice on people calling that free choice"
and PROGRESSIVE to mean taking the liberal positions and promoting them
Proactively but not to the point of EXCLUDING or REJECTING opposition.

Are we getting close to distinguishing these approaches within the liberals/progressive voices?

westwall SuperDemocrat JakeStarkey Disir
Please comment on how we can distinguish at least three levels of interaction
and not use the same words to mean conflicting groups, but agree which label matches what:
* Regressive for pushing liberal ideology to the point of rejecting, excluding, bullying opposition
* Progressive for pushing liberal ideology proactive, seeking inclusion/agreement of all others
* Liberals for the larger base that follows either the Regressive or Progressive leadership

 

[JakeStarkey]

The regressives and reactionaries are the far right.

They hated the titles so try to put them on the right: tough to be them.

 

[emilynghiem]

The regressives and reactionaries are the far right.

They hated the titles so try to put them on the right: tough to be them.

Dear JakeStarkey The labeling is hard because
sometimes that misses also, similar to the clarinets that are woodwinds like flutes but align in the key of trumpets.

For example with Cruz I am seeing him labeled two totally conflicting ways.

The Republicans are split in two or three and that's why:
* the ones who lean Constitutionalist, and against liberals who override that,
will SIDE with Cruz and say he is NOT part of the establishment that is messing up the GOP but checking them. They blame the liberalization of the GOP for going along with PC and what the media pushes.

The problem here is that the REACTIONARY FAR RIGHT align with moderates in supporting Cruz
so he gets labeled as more of the dangerous rightwing for having their support.

* the ones who are either liberal or go independent and not Constitutionalist
are now saying Cruz IS one of the globalist sellouts playing the same game as liberal corporate sellouts. This is the exact opposite. How can Cruz be part of the religious right that REJECTS liberals and be part of the same corporate sellouts that have bought out the Democrats? What do you call these things so the labels don't contradict each other?

What do you suggest? How can we pick this apart except to spell it out
who is Christian right, Christian moderate or Constitutionalist but inclusive of left and right,
Constitutionalist obstructionist/reactionary or
the liberal type of obstructionist that aligns with the Reactionary/Regressive Left.

Not sure where to begin with sorting out the conservative closet!
Can you help pick apart the piles I listed above. Do you know what I mean by them?
I guess this is like sorting laundry. Thanks for any help you can offer here,
JakeStarkey. I am guessing you are part of the liberal/moderate GOP who gets blamed for siding too much with the Democrats where this goes against the Constitution like the reactionary/regressive Democrats. Whereas as a progressive/proactive Democrat I align with the Christians and Conservatives willing to work out inclusive consensual agreements, but because I include the far rightwing and Tea Party seen as excluding the left, then people say I am conservative but can't place me on the left/right spectrum. How would you label the rightwing where it is clear where you and I fit in? And what is the deal with Ted Cruz?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Both sides are guilty of that. I have been accused of being a liberal or conservative so many times on this board that I just laugh it off anymore.

I agree that that does happen but it isn't the same on the right as it is on the left. A libertarian and conservative can sit down and disagree with minor things and discuss different ideas by laying down their perspective arguments. Neither of them think that that others side has to agree with them anytime during the argument in order to even have an arguments. "liberals' on the other hand seem to act that in order for people to have a discussion with them everyone has to agree with them every moment of the argument. It isn't the same.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some conservatives and libertarians can do that, the overwhelming majority can't.

We would not have the nonsense of Trump if they could.

So we are going to have HRC because of far right regressive and reactionary hatred.

We easily could have had a conservative like Kasich or Paul.

But nope, the entitled far right can't share the sand box. Fuck em.

 

[bendog]

Some conservatives and libertarians can do that, the overwhelming majority can't.

We would not have the nonsense of Trump if they could.

So we are going to have HRC because of far right regressive and reactionary hatred.

We easily could have had a conservative like Kasich or Paul.

But nope, the entitled far right can't share the sand box. Fuck em.

 

[emilynghiem]

Some conservatives and libertarians can do that, the overwhelming majority can't.

We would not have the nonsense of Trump if they could.

So we are going to have HRC because of far right regressive and reactionary hatred.

We easily could have had a conservative like Kasich or Paul.

But nope, the entitled far right can't share the sand box. Fuck em.

Dear JakeStarkey if Trump isn't going to allow all the other
Republicans to represent (a) their constituents and (b) the rest of the nation they serve,
I would TOTALLY support you and other GOP in meetings with all these
leaders and Trump to work out a game plan that DOES.

This is too important. We don't need to suffer from a bad administration
as collective punishment on everyone.

I will work on a draft of letters to local state and national level
Texas officials through their offices and call for a meeting.

It looks like similar is dividing the Democrats where a good following
is contesting and rejecting the political censorship and manipulation/abuse
of the party systems in ways that wasn't fair but exclusive and damaging
to the Democrat base and leaders trying to reform the party constructively.

Thanks JakeStarkey if we can't even get parties to represent
their own member voters without contortion and censorship, they
certainly can't be trusted to represent the nation. This is sad and serious.

I really hope it pulls people together both left and right to do more.
Thank you!

 

[emilynghiem]

Both sides are guilty of that. I have been accused of being a liberal or conservative so many times on this board that I just laugh it off anymore.

I agree that that does happen but it isn't the same on the right as it is on the left. A libertarian and conservative can sit down and disagree with minor things and discuss different ideas by laying down their perspective arguments. Neither of them think that that others side has to agree with them anytime during the argument in order to even have an arguments. "liberals' on the other hand seem to act that in order for people to have a discussion with them everyone has to agree with them every moment of the argument. It isn't the same.

Dear SuperDemocrat
I say something similar by explaining that when conservatives stand on the Constitution as the check on govt,
and Christians stand by the scriptures as the blueprint for the church laws, they can receive rebukes and
resolve them by those standards. If they push something too far, they will accept correction using these same laws.

Not so much with the liberals and Democrats who use their own party or personal principles as their standard. Not only do they push one way, but they contradict themselves and don't enforce this consistently. For example they push
* beliefs about health care against free choice while rejecting right to life as against free choice
* beliefs about orientation/identity as protected from discrimination but discriminate against other beliefs by bullying
* beliefs that violate the principle of separation of church and state that is enforced selectively and biased to suit them

That's what happens when the partisan or personal beliefs is put first before constitutional
principles, that WOULD protect these beliefs and values EQUALLY as those of others, even opponents.

I guess it's like trying to expect a rape victim to respect the rights of their perceived oppressor.
They feel so victimized and defenseless, they only want to defend themselves from further attacks.
They are not in a position or stage of standing on equal ground and dealing with everyone equally.
Still so afraid of being bullied or bulldozed over, they seek help of any collective power that can bully back.