nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Anyone else becoming terrified of Liberals.

Bebopclown

This fear has been building in me for awhile but seeing all these violent protests recently has heightened my fears. It seems that if you are in any way different, if you like something that's a little abnormal (like 18 certed horror films) these liberals want you dead! They will scream, shout and threaten you until you conform and be like them. Right now, it seems that if you are different, maybe a little bit odd, it's now time to lock yourself up and never step outside. I don't like posting online anymore due to fear of liberal attacks and labelling.
My therapist says I need to get out more, talk to people and let them get to know the real me but I'm scared the real me will get me killed at the hands of these liberals. My therapist says my oddness makes me unique but I think it makes me a target of liberal hate. It feels like I need to conform, I need to become something else because being me is a horrible thing. I need to stay so deep in the closet because if I come out then that will be another thing that makes me different.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

KingBrian2

What's so wrong with being a conservative democracy? We hear all this talk of liberal democracy but it was neoliberal economics that ruined the world economy and it was liberalism that advocated going for broke waging wars. If being a liberal means sponsoring terrorism in foreign lands you have gone very far from the principles of self determination by sovereign states.

jooksavage

KingBrian2 wrote: »

What's so wrong with being a conservative democracy? We hear all this talk of liberal democracy but it was neoliberal economics that ruined the world economy and it was liberalism that advocated going for broke waging wars. If being a liberal means sponsoring terrorism in foreign lands you have gone very far from the principles of self determination by sovereign states.

I heard Kenneth Clarke on the radio a few months ago. He was dismayed by the wave of populism being mistaken for Conservatism that saw Brexit, the rise of Trump and the ascent of the far right. Truly conservative politics used to be rooted in reality and the preservation of traditional values. This populist surge is anything but conservative - it's an irrational, childishly simplistic fantasy that feeds off fear, xenophobia and a paranoid worldview where evil, shadowy elites endlessly grind down the masses.

ancapailldorcha

KingBrian2 wrote: »

What's so wrong with being a conservative democracy? We hear all this talk of liberal democracy but it was neoliberal economics that ruined the world economy and it was liberalism that advocated going for broke waging wars. If being a liberal means sponsoring terrorism in foreign lands you have gone very far from the principles of self determination by sovereign states.

I'm not sure how you've managed to associate liberalism with waging wars. Recently, wars have been waged by Western governments for various reasons. Liberal agendas weren't among those reasons.

KingBrian2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not sure how you've managed to associate liberalism with waging wars. Recently, wars have been waged by Western governments for various reasons. Liberal agendas weren't among those reasons.

The pretext of those wars was liberal democracies of the civilized world versus primitive savage Arabs.

listermint

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The pretext of those wars was liberal democracies of the civilized world versus primitive savage Arabs.

No. No it wasn't.

jooksavage

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The pretext of those wars was liberal democracies of the civilized world versus primitive savage Arabs.

Talk about rewriting history. In the 2000s the liberal left were opposed to the neo-con adventure in the middle east and were being labelled "moral relativists" by conservatives everywhere.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The pretext of those wars was liberal democracies of the civilized world versus primitive savage Arabs.

That's complete and total nonsense. The pretext of those wars was to make the world(really the USA) safer in a post 9/11 world, with a casual nod to "spreading democracy". They were lead and executed by neoconservatives.

Tony EH

KingBrian2 wrote: »

What's so wrong with being a conservative democracy? We hear all this talk of liberal democracy but it was neoliberal economics that ruined the world economy and it was liberalism that advocated going for broke waging wars. If being a liberal means sponsoring terrorism in foreign lands you have gone very far from the principles of self determination by sovereign states.

Don't make the mistake of confusing Liberal with Neo Liberal or Libertarian.

They are not the same thing.

Professor Moriarty

KingBrian2 wrote:

The pretext of those wars was liberal democracies of the civilized world versus primitive savage Arabs.

Primitive and savage? One the great cultures of the world. Highly sophisticated at a time when the height of our ambitions was running around in sheepskins robbing our neighbour's cattle or living in a stone hut mindlessly reciting ad nauseam.

Next time you're in Spain on your package to Santa Ponza, try to set aside a few days to visit the Alhambra. Then come back and tell me more about primitive and savage Arabs.

Suryavarman

Middle Man wrote: »

]1) Pro equality but strongly oppose man hating feminism;

"Man hating feminism" is a thing dreamt up by people who are ignorant of the many forms of discrimination women still face in day to day life.

2) Very conscious of our environment, but would question current Co2 doctrine;

Conscious of the environment but not bothered by the prospect of runaway climate change.

3) Not religious, but recognise the right to life for all innocent people including those before birth;

Pre-viable foetuses aren't people.

4) Pro rail, road and pedestrian - however, I believe in responsible motoring but don't think cycling is the right day to day transport mode for Ireland;

Cycling allows many people to travel cross-city relatively quick while doing little damage to environment. You're not really convincing me that you're "environmentally conscious" here.

5) Pro enterprise, but anti liberal and vulture capitalism - I'm also against private land ownership but very pro infrastructure and would support some high rise development in our cities;

Pro-enterprise but anti-capitalist and against private property. I'm pretty sure those things are mutually exclusive.

6) Anti fashion - I totally oppose a one size fits all approach to personal style - In fact, I as a man wear loose clothes - do I really care what GQ and their ilk think - I also have seen women making comments on me in public - well, it's none of their business!

I'm not sure what your poor dress sense has to do with politics.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

What's so wrong with being a conservative democracy? We hear all this talk of liberal democracy but it was neoliberal economics that ruined the world economy and it was liberalism that advocated going for broke waging wars. If being a liberal means sponsoring terrorism in foreign lands you have gone very far from the principles of self determination by sovereign states.

Neoliberalism ushered in a period of never before seen levels of macroeconomic stability and poverty reduction. It far from ruined the world economy. In fact it's one of the best things to ever happen to the world economy.

Tony EH wrote: »

Don't make the mistake of confusing Liberal with Neo Liberal or Libertarian.

They are not the same thing.

Neoliberalism is just liberalism mixed with good economic policies.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Orlando attack. An Afghan claimed allegiance to ISIS killed innocent people on a night out.

Omar Mateen was a New Yorker, born and bred, and then lived in Florida. He had no connection to ISIS.

AnGaelach

alastair wrote: »

Omar Mateen was a New Yorker, born and bred, and then lived in Florida. He had no connection to ISIS.

And did KB allege he had IS training or prior connections? No.
He said he pledged allegiance to IS. Which he did.

In a call to 9-1-1 during the shooting, Mateen identified himself as "Mujahideen", "Islamic Soldier", and "Soldier of God";[3][4] and pledged his allegiance multiple times to the Sunni militant jihadist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)

alastair

AnGaelach wrote: »

And did KB allege he had IS training or prior connections? No.
He said he pledged allegiance to IS. Which he did.

He also said he was an Afghan. He wasn't.

Mateen claimed an allegiance to IS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the al-Nuzra Front, and, In 2001, that Osama bin Laden was his uncle. I think it's safe to say he was full of sh!t. He had no connection to any of these groups - he was just screwed up.

AnGaelach

alastair wrote: »

He also said he was an Afghan. He wasn't

Why are you telling lies?

Mateen was born Omar Mir Seddique[7] on November 16, 1986,[8] in New Hyde Park, New York, to Afghan parents.

ancapailldorcha

Brian? wrote: »

That's complete and total nonsense. The pretext of those wars was to make the world(really the USA) safer in a post 9/11 world, with a casual nod to "spreading democracy". They were lead and executed by neoconservatives.

Yep. "They're going to hurt us so let's get our revenge in first and make it several times nastier." That old crutch for imperialism dates back to ancient Rome. They used pirates as an excuse to sack Carthage.

Phoebas

AnGaelach wrote: »

Why are you telling lies?

parent
ˈpɛːr(ə)nt/Submit
noun
1.
a person's father or mother.
"the parents of the bride"
synonyms: mother, father;

AnGaelach

Phoebas wrote: »

parent
ˈpɛːr(ə)nt/Submit
noun
1.
a person's father or mother.
"the parents of the bride"
synonyms: mother, father;

If you're born to two Afghans, you're hardly a duck...

Phoebas

AnGaelach wrote: »

If you're born to two Afghans, you're hardly a duck...

True.
In this case, an American.

ancapailldorcha

AnGaelach wrote: »

If you're born to two Afghans, you're hardly a duck...

Phoebas wrote: »

True.
In this case, an American.

Back on topic, please.

me_right_one

Suryavarman wrote: »

Pre-viable foetuses aren't people.

Tell that to Louise Brown, "born" as far back as the 1970's!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Brown

Matured foetuses like you are why Trump won. I dont know whether to thank you or be angry at you.

Suryavarman

me_right_one wrote: »

Tell that to Louise Brown, "born" as far back as the 1970's!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Brown

Matured foetuses like you are why Trump won. I dont know whether to thank you or be angry at you.

Okay, I will tell that to Louise Brown. Do you have contact details for her? Also, why exactly should I tell Louise Brown that previable foetuses aren't people but more akin to a parasite such as tapeworm?

me_right_one

Suryavarman wrote: »

Also, why exactly should I tell Louise Brown that previable foetuses aren't people but more akin to a parasite such as tapeworm?

Just so you can further demonstrate your ignorance. Maybe she will be kind, and educate you.

professore

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Simply put, these aren't liberals as liberalism by it's nature involves allowing, or at least tolerating different opinions and actions as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. It's also interesting that people are focusing exclusively on the left and are happy to ignore such things from the right.

Who is ignoring this from the right? Certainly not the mainstream media, who run every possible negative storyline about the right. Not saying they shouldn't, but they play this pro abortion, pro immigration anti conservative values thing as if it's the only sanctioned way to think, and attack anyone from that side of things.

Interesting there was almost zero coverage about what the story actually was around the Hillary Clinton e-mail saga, it was so downplayed, but if you looked into it, was a very serious and deliberate breach of national security - she deleted 33000 emails, at least some of which were government related, and she continually lied about it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-emails-secretary-state/story?id=42389308

Suryavarman

me_right_one wrote: »

Just so you can further demonstrate your ignorance. Maybe she will be kind, and educate you.

Could you not give a quick summary then since you are so knowledgeable? I'm only getting through to Louise's voicemail at the moment and I'm impatient and very eager to learn.

WinnyThePoo

professore wrote: »

Who is ignoring this from the right? Certainly not the mainstream media, who run every possible negative storyline about the right. Not saying they shouldn't, but they play this pro abortion, pro immigration anti conservative values thing as if it's the only sanctioned way to think, and attack anyone from that side of things.

Interesting there was almost zero coverage about what the story actually was around the Hillary Clinton e-mail saga, it was so downplayed, but if you looked into it, was a very serious and deliberate breach of national security - she deleted 33000 emails, at least some of which were government related, and she continually lied about it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-emails-secretary-state/story?id=42389308

The Clinton email scandal was big news. You must not have been following the election at all.

323

Brian? wrote: »

That's complete and total nonsense. The pretext of those wars was to make the world(really the USA) safer in a post 9/11 world, with a casual nod to "spreading democracy". They were lead and executed by neoconservatives.

Ahh, come on, you can't actually believe that drivel about spreading democracy. Remember all the liberal nuts applauding that here at the time. Spent a good bit of time in Libya 2004/05, it was nice. Folks there were generally a lot happier with their government than most of Europe or the west. No homeless, fantastic medical system (none of the hundreds on hospital trolleys) excellent education and safe with little enough crime.

Lets start being honest. Libya had highest distribution of petroleum wealth to its population of any energy production country in the world, that sort of wealth going to the plebes couldn't be allowed to continue.

Making the world safer drivel, well, yes if you're referring to the banjaxed debt ridden economies of the countries who pushed for to war (liberals refer to these type of wars and genocide as interventions) in Libya. Libya and Qaddafi at the head of the African Union (with a gold backed currency) that would have happened would have spelled the end of western economies.
Was also the intervention that gave rise to ISIS, bit of an own goal there on making the world safer.

FA Hayek

I think modern day 'Liberals' are basically insufferable ghastly creatures who live in ivory towers and preach to the rest how to live their lives.

Oscars are around the corner and you can be sure, that it will all be about Trump this, Trump that. You would not mind of course if they were up in arms against Obama when he deported 2.5 million illegals, the most ever for an American president but then that is not singing from the hymmsheet.

Team America sums it up best, they really are a parody of themselves, they take themselves oh so seriously, as they have some moral appointment by society to be preaching to the rest of us.

oscarBravo

FA Hayek wrote: »

I think modern day 'Liberals' are basically insufferable ghastly creatures who live in ivory towers and preach to the rest how to live their lives.

Yeah, those nasty liberals, telling women they can't have control over their own bodies; telling gay people they can't get married; telling Muslims that their religion is a cancer.

FA Hayek

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, those nasty liberals, telling women they can't have control over their own bodies; telling gay people they can't get married; telling Muslims that their religion is a cancer.

Ah, so here we go with the strawmanning and false equvilances. Didn't take long.

Don't look there (at progressives)... look over here (at right wingers)!!

Note: never addresses the actual points made.

oscarBravo

FA Hayek wrote: »

Note: never addresses the actual points made.

You made actual points?

I guess calling people "insufferable ghastly creatures" is what passes for making actual points in alternative-facts land.