CDZ Are Liberals Their Own Worst Enemy?

[aaronleland]

You are free to practice your faith...you just can't force it on others

That would apply to guilt and self-righteousness as well. Without those you would have nothing to stand on.

Religion does not thrive off of guilt and self righteousness?

Religion has nothing to do with the fact that you're going to Hell for your guilt, and I'm going to Heaven for my righteousness. Don't be ridiculous.

 

[rightwinger]

You are free to practice your faith...you just can't force it on others

That would apply to guilt and self-righteousness as well. Without those you would have nothing to stand on.

Religion does not thrive off of guilt and self righteousness?

Religion has nothing to do with the fact that you're going to Hell for your guilt, and I'm going to Heaven for my righteousness. Don't be ridiculous.

Now you are getting skeery

 

[rightwinger]

Lot of drama coming out in this thread

Still not clear how Liberals are our own worse enemy.......we seem to be winning on every front

 

[Meathead]

Religion does not thrive off of guilt and self righteousness?

I was not referring to religion, although it does also. I was referring to you and a monolithic doctrine of unmitigated self-righteousness that you have thoroughly embraced.

I see little difference between you and a bible-thumping preacher or a communist hack. There is precious little difference.

Perhaps you could explain why you are right and they are wrong.

 

[Carla_Danger]

THIS IS NOT A RANT AGAINST LIBERALS. It is a question about whether the imposition of liberal policies which conflict with established social norms inevitably breeds a political overreaction which results in an even less liberal society. This has happened throughout history, and is happening right now in many Muslim countries.

Can it happen here? There are a growing number of people who believe that our country is in grave danger not seen since the Civil War. With mounting evidence, they view the agencies of the federal government to be both corrupt and illegal organs of political suppression and intimidation. The ascendance of "anti-establishment" political candidates indicates a serious lack of faith in these institutions.

What will be the result? Will the bare faced political shenanigans of the last eight years be reversed with a vengeance? Will fire be met with even greater fire? The mood of the electorate seems to be favoring more authoritarian rule by one side or another. Will we lose either way?

You can calm down
Liberals have always been in this country....in fact, this country was founded by liberals

Homosexuals being allowed to marry will not end the world as we know it

It will end religious liberty as we know it. It already has

You are free to practice whatever religion you wish.

 

[rightwinger]

Religion does not thrive off of guilt and self righteousness?

I was not referring to religion, although it does also. I was referring to you and a monolithic doctrine that you have thoroughly embraced.

I see little difference between you and a bible-thumping preacher or a communist hack. There is precious little difference.

Perhaps you could explain why you are right and they are wrong.

No idea what you are rambling about

Why not just give specific examples?

 

[Meathead]

Mod Edit - this is the CDZ, no insults or put downs or flames.

 

[rightwinger]

Religion does not thrive off of guilt and self righteousness?

I was not referring to religion, although it does also. I was referring to you and a monolithic doctrine that you have thoroughly embraced.

I see little difference between you and a bible-thumping preacher or a communist hack. There is precious little difference.

Perhaps you could explain why you are right and they are wrong.

No idea what you are rambling about

Why not just give specific examples?

That is cheap, but not surprising. Explain why you are right and a religious preacher or a communist are not.

Do so please, or quit being such a low life.

Hard to answer such a broad accusation

Why not provide specifics?

 

[Skylar]

THIS IS NOT A RANT AGAINST LIBERALS. It is a question about whether the imposition of liberal policies which conflict with established social norms inevitably breeds a political overreaction which results in an even less liberal society. This has happened throughout history, and is happening right now in many Muslim countries.

I guess it depends on how deeply entrenched the social norms are. If the Supreme Court had overturned interracial marriage laws here in say....the 1850s, folks would have lost their shit. But by the 1960s they weren't quite as passionate about it. Same with gay marriage. Support outpacing opposition preceded the rulings.

Violating social mores are killing offenses in many Muslim societies. The worst we'll do here is shun or protest someone as a general rule.

Can it happen here? There are a growing number of people who believe that our country is in grave danger not seen since the Civil War. With mounting evidence, they view the agencies of the federal government to be both corrupt and illegal organs of political suppression and intimidation. The ascendance of "anti-establishment" political candidates indicates a serious lack of faith in these institutions.

The threat of civil war is grossly overstated. Most fundamentally, who would fight it? That's a major problem among the 'anti-establishment' types. They're talkers. Wanna be philosophers and bloggers. They won't actually bleed to make their version of our nation happen in any significant number. And this is truer for the fighting age folks than it is for anyone else.

And for those extremists who would put their money where their mouth is, their narrative is a fantasy. They'll start killing cops, soldiers and fire fighters in the 'name of the revolution' and every day folks will run into their house, grab their guns and *join* them?

Its nonsense. every day folks will run into their house, grab their guns and *end* them. As these cops, soldiers and fire fighters are our sons, daughters, brothers, fathers and friends.

What we're seeing is a massive influx of money into organizations designed to erode public confidence in central government for the purpose of reducing regulation and taxes for the wealthy. Through popular support or through paralysis in the actual government. Its a hideously short sighted policy.

Wedge issues that have virtually no practical relevance to people's daily lives are being used. Gay marriage is a practical non-issue. Gun Control is largely relegated to issues of background checks...which the public overwhelmingly supports. Voter ID is meaningless pablum, preventing voter fraud in quantities over spans of years you could count on your fingers.

None of this shit actually matters on a practical, day to day basis. But talking heads *pretend* it matters. And the media is complicity because a mindless irate chattering over manufactured outrage is good for ratings. Which means better advertising revenue.

But being pissed at the TV over say, which color the cup is at starbucks doesn't translate into a willingness to die or to kill over it.

 

[Meathead]

Religion does not thrive off of guilt and self righteousness?

I was not referring to religion, although it does also. I was referring to you and a monolithic doctrine that you have thoroughly embraced.

I see little difference between you and a bible-thumping preacher or a communist hack. There is precious little difference.

Perhaps you could explain why you are right and they are wrong.

No idea what you are rambling about

Why not just give specific examples?

That is cheap, but not surprising. Explain why you are right and a religious preacher or a communist are not.

Do so please, or quit being such a low life.

Hard to answer such a broad accusation

Why not provide specifics?

There is no accusation other than that of self-righteousness. You would be a fool to deny that.

I am merely asking you for a distinction between you and others so inclined.

 

[rightwinger]

Religion does not thrive off of guilt and self righteousness?

I was not referring to religion, although it does also. I was referring to you and a monolithic doctrine that you have thoroughly embraced.

I see little difference between you and a bible-thumping preacher or a communist hack. There is precious little difference.

Perhaps you could explain why you are right and they are wrong.

No idea what you are rambling about

Why not just give specific examples?

That is cheap, but not surprising. Explain why you are right and a religious preacher or a communist are not.

Do so please, or quit being such a low life.

Hard to answer such a broad accusation

Why not provide specifics?

There is no accusation other than that of self-righteousness. You would be a fool to deny that.

I am merely asking you for a distinction between you and others so inclined.

OK then

Discuss your conservative self righteousness and I will contrast it to Liberals










.

 

[LoneLaugher]

When the GOP selects an "establishment" candidate next year, will the OP reconsider his position?

The only way that any GOP candidate can become POTUS in 2016 is if he or she takes a hard turn to the left in the general. This nation leans left.

If that reality has not hit home yet......you've at least got a weak excuse for this thread.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't know if it will/can or not. I do know that whether it does has more to do with the reaction to the policies implemented than it does with the policies themselves. Were you or another to pose the same inquiry re: non-liberal policies enacted by non-liberal policy makers, I'd have the same response.

Note:
I think that using the term "imposition" casts a non-neutral tone upon what otherwise could have been a pretty good opening depiction and framing of context for this topic. "Impose" certainly makes the remark seem more "rant-like" than mere discussion. Avoiding the connotation associated with "impose," and trying to present a neutral/objective reply, is why I wrote above using "implement" and "enact."

This^. Message board "conservatism" tends to be almost entirely reactive.

that's because they aren't conservative they're radical reactionaries

and why is an obvious troll thread in the CDZ?

I wish I knew where "troll" came from. Were I to know, I'd take a hammer and beat it back into it's hovel. When did "boor" "palterer," "cosener" or "dissembler" become so insufficient to convey the idea that folks had to resort to using a word that identifies a wholly fictional character?

Actually, it was a pretty good discussion with no sign of trolls, till you showed up.

I have to agree that, even given my feeling about the use of "impose," reading it, I didn't sense dissemblance in the opening post, nor do I perceive the OP as boorish, or as having any such quality.

 

[rightwinger]

THIS IS NOT A RANT AGAINST LIBERALS. It is a question about whether the imposition of liberal policies which conflict with established social norms inevitably breeds a political overreaction which results in an even less liberal society. This has happened throughout history, and is happening right now in many Muslim countries.

Can it happen here? There are a growing number of people who believe that our country is in grave danger not seen since the Civil War. With mounting evidence, they view the agencies of the federal government to be both corrupt and illegal organs of political suppression and intimidation. The ascendance of "anti-establishment" political candidates indicates a serious lack of faith in these institutions.

What will be the result? Will the bare faced political shenanigans of the last eight years be reversed with a vengeance? Will fire be met with even greater fire? The mood of the electorate seems to be favoring more authoritarian rule by one side or another. Will we lose either way?

Again, you come off like a drama queen reacting to an evolving society that no longer subscribes to your religious beliefs

 

[Mac1958]

What will be the result?

Seems to me the Left has had quite a bit of success over the last seven years. Maybe not as much as they'd like, but 2016 notwithstanding, it does seem like the country is moving Left.

Obviously the opposition has been pretty rabid, but that doesn't mean it's been effective.
.

 

[rightwinger]

What will be the result?

Seems to me the Left has had quite a bit of success over the last seven years. Maybe not as much as they'd like, but 2016 notwithstanding, it does seem like the country is moving Left.

Obviously the opposition has been pretty rabid, but that doesn't mean it's been effective.
.

All in all, liberals can be very pleased with the progress we have made on healthcare, gay rights, womens health, the environment and immigration

I fail to see how we are our own worst enemy

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

THIS IS NOT A RANT AGAINST LIBERALS. It is a question about whether the imposition of liberal policies which conflict with established social norms inevitably breeds a political overreaction which results in an even less liberal society. This has happened throughout history, and is happening right now in many Muslim countries.

Can it happen here? There are a growing number of people who believe that our country is in grave danger not seen since the Civil War. With mounting evidence, they view the agencies of the federal government to be both corrupt and illegal organs of political suppression and intimidation. The ascendance of "anti-establishment" political candidates indicates a serious lack of faith in these institutions.

What will be the result? Will the bare faced political shenanigans of the last eight years be reversed with a vengeance? Will fire be met with even greater fire? The mood of the electorate seems to be favoring more authoritarian rule by one side or another. Will we lose either way?

You can calm down
Liberals have always been in this country....in fact, this country was founded by liberals

Homosexuals being allowed to marry will not end the world as we know it

It will end religious liberty as we know it. It already has

If you think your religion gives you the right to dictate to government what rights others are allowed to have.....then yes, you have lost that liberty

Forcing someone to bake a cake against there religious beliefs is indeed an attack on religion.
Go peddle your crud somewhere else.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

THIS IS NOT A RANT AGAINST LIBERALS. It is a question about whether the imposition of liberal policies which conflict with established social norms inevitably breeds a political overreaction which results in an even less liberal society. This has happened throughout history, and is happening right now in many Muslim countries.

Can it happen here? There are a growing number of people who believe that our country is in grave danger not seen since the Civil War. With mounting evidence, they view the agencies of the federal government to be both corrupt and illegal organs of political suppression and intimidation. The ascendance of "anti-establishment" political candidates indicates a serious lack of faith in these institutions.

What will be the result? Will the bare faced political shenanigans of the last eight years be reversed with a vengeance? Will fire be met with even greater fire? The mood of the electorate seems to be favoring more authoritarian rule by one side or another. Will we lose either way?

History has shown that the pedulum will swing the other way, eventually. Will it lead to civil unrest? Maybe, the arguement could be made that it already is. Will it lead to the type of unrest that is currently occuring in the ME? I seriously hope not, I hope that we, as a society, are smart enough, and our system of governing too judicious, to allow such bloodshed.

As to your last question, "Will we lose either way?" If it comes to that extreme, yes we will, and our country, possibly the world, as we now know it, will be gone forever.

Eventually the money is going to run out,and or the people will say enough is enough.
Either way the dependent subset of America is going to go apeshit when the money stops.

 

[oldsoul]

What we're seeing is a massive influx of money into organizations designed to erode public confidence in central government for the purpose of reducing regulation and taxes for the wealthy. Through popular support or through paralysis in the actual government. Its a hideously short sighted policy.

I don't follow, could you site some examples?

 

[oldsoul]

I wish I knew where "troll" came from. Were I to know, I'd take a hammer and beat it back into it's hovel. When did "boor" "palterer," "cosener" or "dissembler" become so insufficient to convey the idea that folks had to resort to using a word that identifies a wholly fictional character?

If I where to venture a guess, I would say it comes from people who are not educated enought to know, or possibly even to care, what the words you sited even mean. FWIW