Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
Havockk wrote: » Classical Liberalism is the notion that everyone should be completely free and completely equal, that's what the original thinkers believed anyway. It's ironic of course that liberalism is inherently anti-capitalist yet it is championed by the capitalists. The markets were only the device by which this complete freedom was to be delivered.
alastair wrote: » Your opinion was also that Horner's story was plausible, in fairness.
johnp001 wrote: » On the contrary classical liberalism was the belief in the equality of opportunity which is completely consistent with free market capitalism. A belief in equality of outcome however requires an economic system that is anti-capitalist.
Reuben Flabby Magazine wrote: » This thread seems like great craic. I feel these US Liberals have completely got out of hand, not a very nice bunch of people at all. The worst thing is their air of superiority in what they do. Criticise them and you're likely to be branded a fascist, racist or something similar. All a bit immature.
Havockk wrote: » Guys like Smith would fall into the latter camp there.
Hank Scorpio wrote: » Sure look at the main Trump thread, I got labeled a racist because I have conservative views and I don't buy into the liberal media mania.
Hank Scorpio wrote: » Yeah and I also said Trump would win the election whilst you were calling Clinton Madam President.
DrumSteve wrote: » Makes me a bit sad they way the word liberal has been hijacked by american politics. Whats actually wrong with being liberal in its truest sense?
Brian? wrote: » You know what makes it more confusing? Calling left wing people liberals.
Tony EH wrote: » Absolutely nothing. Being liberal minded is essentially being open minded to new ideas and tolerant for views that differ to one's own. Where one draws their line is up to them. Usually, you'll find that that stops at racism, bigotry and extremist viewpoints. Being liberal is good. However, the American version is a very strange, bastardised take on the position and most of the single issue shouters that are called "liberals" (usually as a slur by those on the right) are nothing of the sort. They're not even left wingers TBH. I always find it strange, though, that "liberal" is a word used to mock by the American right. Like being open minded is a bad thing. :pac:
Tony EH wrote: » But one can hold left wing views and be "liberal". It's generally been the left that have fought for liberal views and tolerance towards those that the right have generally view as a threat, be it homosexuals, foreigners or even women. It wasn't the right wing that had traditionally stood up for the rights of the above examples. It was the left. So from that perspective, the left can hold liberal views, if one is to class "liberal" as open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
red ears wrote: » There is definitely something happening. In my lifetime i have never seen the likes of what is going on in US campuses with riots breaking out when someone comes to give a talk. The anger is palpable. In one video a blonde girl gets hit over the head with a pole. She didn't seem to be doing anything to warrant it. Hollywood directors and actors calling for violence and the whole room cheering and whooping as if its totally acceptable.
Jan_de_Bakker wrote: » As Sargon of Akkad says, back in ancient Rome actors were basically at the same level as prostitutes or street entertainers .... would be great if people today took them as seriously, the day when CGI is so good we don't need that shower can't come quick enough.
Brian? wrote: » What have you got against prostitutes and street entertainers? Actors have every right to express their political views, just like anyone. Why does that annoy you so much? Is it because your side gets lesser known Baldwins?
Brian? wrote: » Actors have every right to express their political views, just like anyone. Why does that annoy you so much?
AnGaelach wrote: » What annoys me, personally, isn't them expressing their views. It's people using them as some kind of authority on something, that since they're famous they're inherently more knowledgeable about something. Whenever I see people post that Australian comedian talking about guns (which he admitted to making up stats for) as some kind of trump card "gotcha" moment, a little part of me dies inside.
listermint wrote: » Who uses then as an authority? Specifically
AnGaelach wrote: » A great many people. Do you want me to start trolling through Facebook comments on videos to find proof? Clinton used them to try and woo people into voting for her. Liam Cunningham was on Claire Byrne debating about refugees for christ sake. The man's experience consists of visiting camps and being on The Guard and Game of Thrones.
listermint wrote: » Wait.. Facebook comments are holding actors in high regard. Ok I'm out
AnGaelach wrote: » Do you think people who post on Facebook aren't allowed to vote or something? Do you think I'm asserting that academic papers are quoting actors? Did you think I was saying Government policy is formed on the basis of radio presenters opinions?
listermint wrote: » Facebook is a hilarious item for you to put your assertion across it's basically zero evidence and musings of real or fake people on the internet.
AnGaelach wrote: » What annoys me, personally, isn't them expressing their views. It's people using them as some kind of authority on something, that since they're famous they're inherently more knowledgeable about something.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Fakebook is the new Encyclopedia Britannica.
WinnyThePoo wrote: » I've noticed trump supporters really don't like actors having an opinion. They really get angry about it.
