Paying in Blood for Liberal Arrogance

Discussion in 'Politics' started by F41, Jul 10, 2006.

  1. F41
    Offline

    F41 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    38
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +8
    Paying in Blood for Liberal Arrogance
    The Fifth Column Justin Darr
    July 10, 2006



    If there is one trait that defines Liberalism, it is a hatred for consequences. No matter what the circumstance, Liberals are either trying to ignore, avoid, or blame others for the consequences of their own actions. Normally this would not be a problem, everyone should be free to live as goofy a life as they please, even if it happens to entail stumbling about blindly within a fog of their own self-delusions. However, the problem with Liberals is they cannot just be content with screwing up their own lives; they have to screw up the lives of those around them as well.

    If a woman runs around and has unprotected sex, Liberals think the child should be killed because it is unfair to make people live with the consequences of their lack of morality. If someone had a bad childhood and has an unnatural hatred for the cherished beliefs of others, Liberals feel we should ostracize Christianity from society so these misfits do not quite so poignantly feel the sting of missing out on Christmas. Illegal immigrants should be granted citizenship so they do not have to deal with the consequences of ignoring immigration law. Disabled loved ones should be euthanized because selfish family members do not want to deal with their care. And, homosexuals should be allowed to marry because they do not want to acknowledge that two beings of the same sex cannot breed.

    Reality is the greatest threat to Liberalism, not Conservatives. When reality comes crashing in, and Liberals are forced to see the consequences of their half baked ideas, their first response is to blame someone else for them. Normally, the people who get blamed will be the ones who said their ideas would never work in the first place, but since the Libs hate them, they make a convenient scapegoat. That might sound like an oxymoron, blaming others who said your ideas would not work after they have been proved right and your ideas did not work, but it far easier for Liberals to lash out in overly emotional incoherence than admit they might have ever made a mistake. more
     
  2. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    New thread title - Typical illogical, right-wing horseshit

    acludem
     
  3. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,894
    Thanks Received:
    2,072
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,786
    Seems to hit the mark.

    And the fact that you can't even agrue against any of the points and only retort with "horseshit" indicates its right on the money.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,341
    Thanks Received:
    7,868
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,949
    Ditto.
     
  5. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    Okay, here's a response:

    What????????? Liberals understand consquences, we just think they should apply to everyone, conservatives they are above consequences and whatever consequences occur can be blamed on liberals.

    I don't know where to start with this. Abortion is rarely used as a method of contraception, I guess this author thinks women are property and shouldn't be able to make their own decisions. What does someone having a bad childhood have to do with Christianity? What the fuck logic is this? I have a disabled loved one and I don't want to euthanize him, but if someone makes the decision that they do not want to be kept alive by artificial means, who is this guy to tell them they have to stay alive? As for gay marriage, his argument evidently means that all married couples should be required to have children, heterosexuals who, for whatever health/genetic/biological reason, can't reproduce, and elderly people who are beyond their child bearing years shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

    Liberalism is idealism within a realistic frame. Conservatism is to stick your head in the sand and refuse to accept reality accept on your own narrow terms. I don't know who "they" are, but many liberal ideas (i.e. allowing women to vote, ending slavery, the American Revolution, etc, have shaped our country).

    What the fuck???????? Conservatives did nothing but help and then exacerbate the rise of Islamic fundamentalism by supporting totalitarian regimes because they weren't communist. See Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Conservative foreign policy put us in a quaqmire in Vietnam, and has now put us into another quagmire in Iraq. How many thousands have died because Bush needlessly invaded a country without provocation or a plan to get out? Who did Jimmy Carter appease? I'm sorry conservatives don't like when the media reports the truth to the American people and it shows how stupid their policies are. Everyone has tried to battle Iran and North Korea over their nukes, except Pres. Bush. He's been too busy trying to save his father's legacy by attacking Iraq.

    My question: How many millions will have to die before Conservatives get their heads out of the sand and face the reality of the 21st century world? A world where they cannot simply force their views on everyone else in this country and around the world and then call themselves patriotic? A world in which simplistic solutions can't solve complex problems.

    acludem
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. fuzzykitten99
    Offline

    fuzzykitten99 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,965
    Thanks Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    You'll have to check the Marauder's Map...
    Ratings:
    +199
    REALLY??!! what about your boy Teddy K.? He drove drunk, KILLED a woman, and didn't even serve any time. He broke the law, and still got to keep his job-trying to write or change laws. Oh, the irony.

    Don't even get me started on the Hollyweird elite who are 99% liberal. They commit crimes on a regular basis and just get community service or even nothing at all.


    Where does this say that he thinks women are property? I can't seem to follow your diluded sense of logic to come to this conclusion. Your statement does not acknowledge that the child that was conceived, had no choice in it's creation. What the author was saying was either protect yourself with contraceptives like the pill or other means, instead of killing the child that had nothing to do with your poor choice to prevent its life from being started, or abstain from sex. If you use the argument that it is "just a bunch of cells"-so are you. Why doesn't someone abort you? Why are you much more worthy of a life than an innocent unborn child caught in the middle of something it had no choice in being?

    come on... most couples that do marry, are younger and of childbearing age. Most choose to have children. Otherwise this country would be in big trouble like Europe is with a declining population of kids to replace the elderly.

    Gay couples by history's proof, do not want kids. the few who do, can only adopt or give birth through AI. This requres an outside source for the aquisition of a child.

    The biggest argument that gays are giving us is they want equal rights. What they really mean is special rights based on their sexual preference and their FEELINGS. A straight person cannot marry someone of the same sex either, so why do gays think they are being discriminated against??? A gay person can marry anyone they choose, as long as that person is the opposite sex-same as a straight person. Nothing special about there.

    I would challenge more, but I do have to get back to work.
     
  7. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,894
    Thanks Received:
    2,072
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,786
    Liberals don't seem to demonstrate that. Liberals are the ones that fight for the rights of convicted inmates to be released into society.
    Conservatives understand very well about consequences, we've seen what liberal policies applied in the middle east does: Clinton's quagmire in Somalia, Clinton's 'cultural' policies that lead to 19 dead airmen at Kobar, Clinton letting Osama bin Laden go when he was offered him, Clintonian policies implemented by Jamie Gorelick that created the intelligence gap that allowed 9/11 to happen.



    You have statisical proof of this statement? Abortion is shoved down poor and single womens throats by organizations like Planned Parenthood. Of course it is contraception, WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE? You honestly think that the vast majority of abortions in this country are done only because the mother's life is at risk? Wake up.


    I would guess the author believes an unborn child has the right to live, as opposed to being silenced by being chopped up and thrown out into a garbage can. But I guess an unborn child is just 'property' isn't it?


    ?
    If someone wants to commit suicide, that is their choice. But if someone is unable to communicate I would think it would be cruel to assume the person wants to be killed off...


    Couples that you describe could still provide an ideal environment to raise someone elses child.



    Those aren't liberal ideas. You seem to think that change within an established system is automatically 'liberal'.




    Once again a liberal complaining about our past actions. I have yet to here a convincing arguement about what we should do differently. North Korea for example? What exatly is the liberal's stance on this? Continue to do what Clinton did? Or bomb them? So far all they do is complain about whatever Bush does.


    It can be argued both ways acludem, we can either sit back and do nothing and watch the violence unfold, or try to do something about it.
    When will liberals get it through their heads that some situations simply must be dealt with through violence?
     

Share This Page