How Liberalism Will Destroy The World

[rtwngAvngr]

Zhukov kicked ass on this thread.

 

[LoudBeagle]

Bullypulpit - it is funny you're an atheist yet have "666" plastered across a picture of George Bush. As a Christian, I believe we are not going to solve the world's problems because we live in a fallen world that will not be made right until Christ's return. Things continue to happen in the world that line up with what the bible says will occur in the end times. And I do believe we are living in the end times, though God himself decides when the world will end, and it is not for anyone to know but him. In the end times, Christians will be more and more derided and persecuted for our beliefs and the truths that we speak. Indeed it is already happening in America, with greater and greater frequency, as Christians are banned, treated with contempt and laughed at. It is also happening in China, where Christians have been killed for their beliefs, and other parts of the world. If you have not studied God's word, I urge you to do so before writing God off. The things happening in the world today are right in line with what the bible says will happen in the end times.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
do we determine what is right or wrong in society by the opinion of one person? or do we determine that as a society? Theres the crux of the issue.

Neither. Right and wrong are not subjective, they are fixed. Just because the majority of Islamic terrorists think killing innocent civilians is right, that doesn't make it so.

If terrorists killed the majority of humanity tommorow, and the only people who were left were terrorists or terrorist sympathizers who all felt they did a good thing, exterminating most of humanity, does that make it a good thing? Obviously not.

when you take a persons ideology, political viewpoint, or stance on humanity and call it a disease that will destroy whatever, what do you expect it to be called?

If it is the truth, it should be acknowledge as such.

As far as removing the religious part, I meant that as in mostly hearing how 'liberalism' is the source of all evil because of the un-christian like ways...

I see.

I would clarify however, liberalism is not the source of all evil, but it is flawed in a way that permits it to tolerate and even support evil against the greater good. Islamic fundamentalism is evil but not liberal. It is in fact quite conservative.

Additionally it is not neccesarily the 'un-christian' nature of liberalism that is its flaw, but instead it's moral relativism.

Now read it without the religion part and see if its the same

My point was that you assumed I had a religious agenda. Saying 'read it without the religion part' is like saying, "pretend I didn't write it."

Its called free will

Precisely. The freedom to act for good or ill. That doesn't explain to me how I'm wrong.

Why aren't Mexicans flying planes into buildings? They're poor.

Ask them

Why is UBL a terrorist? He's rich.

Thats been explained many times over. are you in need of a refresher course?

It's a rheotorical device. That's why I answered my own questions afterwards.

explain street gangs in south central, or el paso, or anywhere else along the mexican border.

A mixture of liberal insistence on proclaiming 'victimhood' (which is about the most harmful thing you can do to a people), and, in many instances, lack of a responsible father figure and respectable male rolemodels, which together lead to moral confusion.

When people are told they are victims why should they bother to strive? They believe they've been cheated and can't succeed and they behave accordingly. If they've been robbed, why not rob. If they've been oppressed and hated, why not be mad and spiteful. Instead of being told, "some awful things have happened in the past, but thats the past and we should work together now, its in your best interests," they are told, "be angry." This behavior is not the effect of poverty, it is it's cause.

Without really understanding it (and for that it could be partially excused) the Democrats (I'm being party specific in this instance only) are the biggest impediment to black equality.

If you are truly an atheist then there are some 'liberal' stances you should have no problem with.

Are you a Liberal?

from: http://www.dennisprager.com/areyouliberal.html

You say you are a liberal.


Do you believe the following?

Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc. should be lowered for people of color.

Bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than immersion in English, is good for them and for America.

Murderers should never be put to death.

During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms freeze.

Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.

It was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.

Poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send their children to private schools.

It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.

Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people.

A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a child than two men or two women.

The Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other public places and should be prohibited from using churches and synagogues for their meetings.

The present high tax rates are good.

Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values.

The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent.

The United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and therefore America should be subservient to it and such international institutions as a world court.

It is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports teams in order to meet gender-based quotas.

No abortions can be labeled immoral.

Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section.

High schools should make condoms available to students and teach them how to use them.

Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male.

Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.

It is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God bless you" at their graduation.

No culture is morally superior to any other.




Those are all liberal positions. How many of them do you hold?

Baring any evidence that indicates condom's in High School actually increases instances of pregnancy, STD transmission, or rape, I would say I agree with that one, and that one alone.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Moi
Education is lacking because people aren't made to account for themselves. School violence and sloth are easy to solve. If kids don't go to class or do homework - poof - out they go. If they bring weapons to class - poof - out they go. If they conduct themselves poorly - poof - out they go. Unlike today where they are coddled and let loose on the poor students there to learn.

And consequences of which I speak are indeed real, earthly consequenses. I am not religious and do not believe in future punishments of heaven and hell. Consequences for poor behavior, stupidity and poor choices should mean starvation, homelessness and loss of life. People should suffer for doing the wrong thing TODAY. If that were the case a lot fewer people would continue to do stupid, senseless, illegal things. Morality is not an elusive, ephemeral conceptl. It's friggen concrete. You f up, you are gone from society.

Can't argue with ya there. Except for your last point...about starvation, homelessness and death. Rehabilitation first...If they screw up again, then they must be removed from society as humanely as possible, i.e. imprisonment or exile. There are plenty of isolated, deserted islands scattered around the world.

Unfortunately, I haven't met anyone who hasn't eff'd up at some time or another. Your absolutist approach would mean no mercy. Social Darwinism is just another form of tyranny.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Can't argue with ya there. Except for your last point...about starvation, homelessness and death. Rehabilitation first...If they screw up again, then they must be removed from society as humanely as possible, i.e. imprisonment or exile. There are plenty of isolated, deserted islands scattered around the world.

Unfortunately, I haven't met anyone who hasn't eff'd up at some time or another. Your absolutist approach would mean no mercy. Social Darwinism is just another form of tyranny.

I don't think he's advocating a government agency be formed to ensure that poor decisions lead to starvation or anything. The government will still be hoping that you find a solution to your problems.

 

[Moi]

For Moi

I certainly see your point, and yes I agree, that if someone empties his bank account and pisses it away in a casino, yeah, better find a way to eat, etc. etc. etc. One of the problems that people refuse to take into consideration when looking at an issue is the 'all sides' aspect. Yes, some people will abuse it, but others could truly benefit from having the help when they deal with consequences not necessarily of their own making. Now, what do we do...deal with the abusers or punish the true victims?

I agree that there are times in which people have bad luck. I'm not advocating for no assitance at all. However, I don't think that the government (and thus its citizenry) should bear the brunt of bailing everyone out all the time. Assistance should be limited in nature, duration and number of times over the life of the assisted.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I don't think he's advocating a government agency be formed to ensure that poor decisions lead to starvation or anything. The government will still be hoping that you find a solution to your problems.

We are guaranteed the "...Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..."
We are not, however, guaranteed happiness. This runs contrary to the belief of many in this country, and around the world, that they are somehow owed something.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
We are guaranteed the "...Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..."
We are not, however, guaranteed happiness. This runs contrary to the belief of many in this country, and around the world, that they are somehow owed something.

We actually aren't guaranteed anything.

 

[DKSuddeth]

according to the declaration of independence, we are.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
according to the declaration of independence, we are.

I'd like for you to quote for us where it states anything is guaranteed. I hope you don't think "certain unalienable Rights" is a guarantee.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Moi
We actually aren't guaranteed anything.

The Constitution is the guarantor for the citizen of protection from a corrupt and decadent government.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
The Constitution is the guarantor for the citizen of protection from a corrupt and decadent government.

I see it as a protection of rights. I still don't see any guarantees anywhere in there. Could you please be more specific?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I'd like for you to quote for us where it states anything is guaranteed. I hope you don't think "certain unalienable Rights" is a guarantee.

and you do know the definition of 'unalienable' is, right?

Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable:

of course, if you want to rewrite the declaration and websters, feel free, but not too many people of sound mind will be joining you

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
and you do know the definition of 'unalienable' is, right?

Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable:

of course, if you want to rewrite the declaration and websters, feel free, but not too many people of sound mind will be joining you

Oh, I know exactly what it means. Remember, I'm the one who chose to get a proper education and corresponding paperwork that comes with it.

The Declaration of Independence is an important document in our country’s history and founding. However, it is not a law. It was not ratified by a government of the people- at that time the government was thousands of miles away, swaddled in jewels and was the unfortunate person to whom the Declaration was written. The Declaration of Independence is just that – a declaration. A letter to the King of England and to the other countries of the world that the United States was breaking ties with England and an enumeration of the reasons why. It is an opinion piece not unlike all the ones you see today wherein the opinions of the writers is included. Opinion pieces are not law. They are not state-sponsored rules or guarantees.

Even if you incorrectly choose to ascribe any legal connotation to the document as a whole, merely looking at the statement in full will clearly show you that there is not a guarantee of the government within. To whit,

“that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It is quite clear by the wording of the Declaration that those who signed it declared these so-called rights are given to us by the creator, not the government. The only mention of government is to not destroy these ends...not to guarantee every person life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
according to the declaration of independence, we are.

Are we governed by the Declaration of Independece?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
viewing liberalism as a disease is crap, its nothing but hatespeech, its nothing but an attempt at a radical rightwing religious push for an idealization. :finger:

Yes, definitely a push for an idealization. (WTF?)

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Oh, I know exactly what it means. Remember, I'm the one who chose to get a proper education and corresponding paperwork that comes with it.

The Declaration of Independence is an important document in our country’s history and founding. However, it is not a law. It was not ratified by a government of the people- at that time the government was thousands of miles away, swaddled in jewels and was the unfortunate person to whom the Declaration was written. The Declaration of Independence is just that – a declaration. A letter to the King of England and to the other countries of the world that the United States was breaking ties with England and an enumeration of the reasons why. It is an opinion piece not unlike all the ones you see today wherein the opinions of the writers is included. Opinion pieces are not law. They are not state-sponsored rules or guarantees.

Even if you incorrectly choose to ascribe any legal connotation to the document as a whole, merely looking at the statement in full will clearly show you that there is not a guarantee of the government within. To whit,

“that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It is quite clear by the wording of the Declaration that those who signed it declared these so-called rights are given to us by the creator, not the government. The only mention of government is to not destroy these ends...not to guarantee every person life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

Furthermore, the constitution does not guarantee life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It spells out what the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government can and cannot do. That's all.