Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

[ihopehefails]

I've heard this phrase being uttered on some talk show. It is rather insulting so I won't describe liberalism as that but let me explain my own thoughts of how liberals think.

A conservative looks at the first amendment as a legal principle that only applies in a court of law while a liberal looks at it as a principle to live by. This is why you hear liberals say things like "I believe in the first amendment" or "this is what I believe <insert political idea in here>". A liberal will apply this 'belief' in their personal life as something to live by and defines them while a conservative sees it as something they they don't have to live by personally and only a legal principle of how the government operates. A conservative doesn't believe that he has to respect the right of someone else to speak freely on a personal level while a liberal does because it is a principle for them to live by so it would be hypocritical for them not to allow someone to speak.

The question is which one is better? I believe the conservative way of thinking is better because if I am morally obligated to let someone speak then that person has that right in my home, my business, or any other place that a person has control over. I actually lose freedom in this setting because I am obligated to do something that I don't want to and that is to listen to someone that I don't want to listen to.

 

[elvis]

this is where you heard it.

 

[ihopehefails]

this is where you heard it.

True. I was trying to explain why it seems that way sometimes. When someone believes something on almost religious manor they don't reason things out and become finatical about it. Just look at how creationist attempt to distort reason in order to get the earth was made in six days.

The best thing I ever heard was that religion without reason is madness.

 

[Toronado3800]

A liberal interpretation of the Constitution allows the government power to do things not thought of in 1790.

A conservative interpretation requires amendments to pass federal laws covering new technologies.

After all, all powers not given....

Either way, its a moot point until you get the supreme court to give South Carolina back to the South Carolinans.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

I've heard this phrase being uttered on some talk show. It is rather insulting so I won't describe liberalism as that but let me explain my own thoughts of how liberals think.

A conservative looks at the first amendment as a legal principle that only applies in a court of law while a liberal looks at it as a principle to live by.

Why is it bad to have as one of your principles that all are free to express themselves, regardless of whether you agree with them?

This is why you hear liberals say things like "I believe in the first amendment" or "this is what I believe <insert political idea in here>". A liberal will apply this 'belief' in their personal life as something to live by and defines them while a conservative sees it as something they they don't have to live by personally and only a legal principle of how the government operates. A conservative doesn't believe that he has to respect the right of someone else to speak freely on a personal level while a liberal does because it is a principle for them to live by so it would be hypocritical for them not to allow someone to speak.

The question is which one is better? I believe the conservative way of thinking is better

You believe its better to be the bigot you describe?

because if I am morally obligated to let someone speak then that person has that right in my home, my business, or any other place that a person has control over.

Wrong. They have no right to violate your home in any way. It is your home, and their presence is not welcome. There is a huge difference between running into your house with a bullhorn and saying what I will to any willing to listen without violating anyone else's privacy or space.

If you can't see the difference, then you've already proven yourself a retarded piece of fecal waste.

I actually lose freedom in this setting because I am obligated to do something that I don't want to

And? You might not want to walk an extra 200 feet, but I don't want you walking through my house. You might not want to go someplace out of your way for target practice, but we don't want you shooting at cans in the backyard, facing the school across the road.

and that is to listen to someone that I don't want to listen to.

You might not always want to listen to the police when they tell you you're too drunk to drive, but we don't want you killing our children.


Dumbass.

 

[ihopehefails]

I've heard this phrase being uttered on some talk show. It is rather insulting so I won't describe liberalism as that but let me explain my own thoughts of how liberals think.

A conservative looks at the first amendment as a legal principle that only applies in a court of law while a liberal looks at it as a principle to live by.

Why is it bad to have as one of your principles that all are free to express themselves, regardless of whether you agree with them?

This is why you hear liberals say things like "I believe in the first amendment" or "this is what I believe <insert political idea in here>". A liberal will apply this 'belief' in their personal life as something to live by and defines them while a conservative sees it as something they they don't have to live by personally and only a legal principle of how the government operates. A conservative doesn't believe that he has to respect the right of someone else to speak freely on a personal level while a liberal does because it is a principle for them to live by so it would be hypocritical for them not to allow someone to speak.

The question is which one is better? I believe the conservative way of thinking is better

You believe its better to be the bigot you describe?


Wrong. They have no right to violate your home in any way. It is your home, and their presence is not welcome. There is a huge difference between running into your house with a bullhorn and saying what I will to any willing to listen without violating anyone else's privacy or space.

If you can't see the difference, then you've already proven yourself a retarded piece of fecal waste.

I actually lose freedom in this setting because I am obligated to do something that I don't want to

And? You might not want to walk an extra 200 feet, but I don't want you walking through my house. You might not want to go someplace out of your way for target practice, but we don't want you shooting at cans in the backyard, facing the school across the road.

and that is to listen to someone that I don't want to listen to.

You might not always want to listen to the police when they tell you you're too drunk to drive, but we don't want you killing our children.


Dumbass.

Gee....even when I try to be nice you can't hold back. I will answer your first question since it had merit.

Why is it bad to have as one of your principles that all are free to express themselves, regardless of whether you agree with them? Nothing but that right exist whether you believe it is something to live by or not because the only way that right can be taken away from you is by the government itself. When the government has not laws abridging your right to speak then the only way that right can be taken away is when you are in someone's home and they ask you to be silent.

 

[ihopehefails]

A liberal interpretation of the Constitution allows the government power to do things not thought of in 1790.

A conservative interpretation requires amendments to pass federal laws covering new technologies.

After all, all powers not given....

Either way, its a moot point until you get the supreme court to give South Carolina back to the South Carolinans.

Powers not given are reserved to the people which gives you more freedom not less because a society of no laws is a society of complete freedom. The more laws you enact the less freedom you have.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Anger?

How is laughing at how stupid you are anger?

And when the hell did I come into power?

Why was I not informed of this? I've got bills to introduce!

 

[ihopehefails]

Anger?

How is laughing at how stupid you are anger?

And when the hell did I come into power?

Why was I not informed of this? I've got bills to introduce!

Remember to wipe the screen after you blither.

 

[Toronado3800]

A liberal interpretation of the Constitution allows the government power to do things not thought of in 1790.

A conservative interpretation requires amendments to pass federal laws covering new technologies.

After all, all powers not given....

Either way, its a moot point until you get the supreme court to give South Carolina back to the South Carolinans.

Powers not given are reserved to the people which gives you more freedom not less because a society of no laws is a society of complete freedom. The more laws you enact the less freedom you have.

Ok, I'll bite on the level of freedom. Not that I brought it up in this post.

Yes, the more laws enacted, the less freedom I have to murder, rape, sell this or that narcotic, prostitute myself, drink beer on Sunday, dance, end my life with the aid of a physician, have sex with children, look at porn on public buses, operate pyramid schemes, them type of things.

Some are bad bad bad, some good, some none of your business if I do it in my own home with other consenting adults.

I think of Mexico when I think of lawless small government. Is there another place I should be thinking of? Perhaps a superpower I'm forgetting about? MAYBE Australia? New Zealand?

At the very least I believe in laws and a good number of punishments because folks can't be trusted.

 

[ihopehefails]

A liberal interpretation of the Constitution allows the government power to do things not thought of in 1790.

A conservative interpretation requires amendments to pass federal laws covering new technologies.

After all, all powers not given....

Either way, its a moot point until you get the supreme court to give South Carolina back to the South Carolinans.

Powers not given are reserved to the people which gives you more freedom not less because a society of no laws is a society of complete freedom. The more laws you enact the less freedom you have.

Ok, I'll bite on the level of freedom. Not that I brought it up in this post.

Yes, the more laws enacted, the less freedom I have to murder, rape, sell this or that narcotic, prostitute myself, drink beer on Sunday, dance, end my life with the aid of a physician, have sex with children, look at porn on public buses, operate pyramid schemes, them type of things.

Some are bad bad bad, some good, some none of your business if I do it in my own home with other consenting adults.

I think of Mexico when I think of lawless small government. Is there another place I should be thinking of? Perhaps a superpower I'm forgetting about? MAYBE Australia? New Zealand?

At the very least I believe in laws and a good number of punishments because folks can't be trusted.

You are correct. People can't be trusted to self-regulate themselves in a free society which is why some government is needed to make it work but since government enacts laws that removes us from our state of freedom then government is the thing that acts against freedom but since we can't be trusted we still need it at the same time. It kind of sucks but until God makes us perfect people that can function without any external control we will always need government.

The question is shouldn't government take the form that comes as close as possible to maintain the free society?

 

[Dr Grump]

because I am obligated to do something that I don't want to and that is to listen to someone that I don't want to listen to.

No you're not....Me? If someone is blathering on I just walk away or ignore them...

 

[ihopehefails]

because I am obligated to do something that I don't want to and that is to listen to someone that I don't want to listen to.

No you're not....Me? If someone is blathering on I just walk away or ignore them...

Don't you belive in free speech?

 

[rdean]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...ess-corner-stones-of-republican-ideology.html

It's impossible to keep things exactly as they are for always. This is why conservatives are destined to "fail".

 

[ihopehefails]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...ess-corner-stones-of-republican-ideology.html

It's impossible to keep things exactly as they are for always. This is why conservatives are destined to "fail".

Not in 2010 and 2012...

 

[Bfgrn]

The liberal's strength is also his biggest weakness...

Karl Popper said it best:

The paradox of tolerance:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

 

[ihopehefails]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...ess-corner-stones-of-republican-ideology.html

It's impossible to keep things exactly as they are for always. This is why conservatives are destined to "fail".

Conservative believe or should believe that little government promotes freedom of the individual since there are few laws to restrict us in our behaviors. 'Liberals' believe in something called human progress where humanity will advance to some goal of perfection but is the free state interfering with any one person's desire to improve himself and pursue human perfection that they wish to achieve? No because there are no laws that inhibit him in his pursuit but because there are no laws another person may choose another path to perfection or not pursue it at all because they are free to do whatever they wish.

You may question if we have such a right but if we have the right to pursue our own religion then doesn't that presuppose the right to progress to the goal of human perfection that that religion has?

 

[Big Fitz]

this is where you heard it.

And it's one statement he's made that I'd agree with. It's cultural and political suicide by definition when you look at end results.

 

[ihopehefails]

The liberal's strength is also his biggest weakness...

Karl Popper said it best:

The paradox of tolerance:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. &#8212; In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

In other words the only speech that should be allowed is speech that is allowed.

 

[Toronado3800]

Powers not given are reserved to the people which gives you more freedom not less because a society of no laws is a society of complete freedom. The more laws you enact the less freedom you have.

Ok, I'll bite on the level of freedom. Not that I brought it up in this post.

Yes, the more laws enacted, the less freedom I have to murder, rape, sell this or that narcotic, prostitute myself, drink beer on Sunday, dance, end my life with the aid of a physician, have sex with children, look at porn on public buses, operate pyramid schemes, them type of things.

Some are bad bad bad, some good, some none of your business if I do it in my own home with other consenting adults.

I think of Mexico when I think of lawless small government. Is there another place I should be thinking of? Perhaps a superpower I'm forgetting about? MAYBE Australia? New Zealand?

At the very least I believe in laws and a good number of punishments because folks can't be trusted.

You are correct. People can't be trusted to self-regulate themselves in a free society which is why some government is needed to make it work but since government enacts laws that removes us from our state of freedom then government is the thing that acts against freedom but since we can't be trusted we still need it at the same time. It kind of sucks but until God makes us perfect people that can function without any external control we will always need government.

The question is shouldn't government take the form that comes as close as possible to maintain the free society?

Is this going to turn into a post about legalized pot? If so I would so happily tie pot legalization to the same bill which made any vehicle accident while high on pot or alcohol an attempted murder charge. My view being do whatever as long as you don't go driving stoned and risk MY life or that of folks I like.