Liberals
70
MORAL RELATIVISM
To understand Social Liberals, I will start with Moral Relativism. Moral Relativism is the belief that no objective truth, no universal standard, exists in morals or ethics. Understanding this worldview is critical to understand the ideology of Social Liberals. Virtually all Atheists are Social Liberals. The belief that there is no concrete right or wrong, no meaning or purpose to human life—and no Transcendence—is the foundation of this viewpoint, that ultimately leads to Moral Anarchy, as man becomes disconnected from his history and sense of eternity.
DECONSTRUCTIONISM
To justify Relativism, it is necessary to use the hammer of Deconstructionism to smash laws, values, metanarratives, orthodoxies, traditions, customs and conventions. From this Deconstruction comes Identity Politics, Multiculturalism and Political Correctness. And the resulting synthesis is a drive for power by any means necessary, especially through bypassing Democracy or Representative Government, wielding power through courts, bureaucracies, NGOs, and appointed officials.
ANTI- AMERICAN
Social Liberals have a relentless critical impulse toward America, its Flag, its Military, and Patriotism. They believe America is racist, oppressive, imperialist, and responsible for much of the evils in the world.
TOLERANCE
To Social Liberals, Marriage is focused on sexual companionship rather than a lifelong commitment to rear the next generation in a traditional family setting. They have successfully pushed for societal acceptance of easy divorce, the removal of father from the family, cohabitation, illegitimacy, pornography, and homosexuality—all in the name of Tolerance. This tolerance does not extend to those who believe in Judeo-Christian values that have formed the foundations of Western Civilization.
ACLU
The ACLU is the bulldog of Social Liberals, with their incessant lawsuits against any reference to God in the public life of our Nation.
SOCIALISM
Social Liberals believe in "leveling" society by creating equal outcomes for all people. While it is impossible to make a drunken bum into a CEO of a Fortune 500 company; it is possible to make the CEO into a drunken bum. They believe the State should fix prices and wages through Central Planning, and if possible to take ownership of the businesses in America. They strongly believe the earnings of those who achieve in society should be confiscated and given to those who do not. Social Liberals have taken the Christian concept of Charity and used it to make everyone a ward of the State.
INDOCTRINATION
To accomplish this demolition of American Society, Indoctrination must be used against the citizenry. By taking control of the Teachers Union, Social Liberals have radically altered public school curriculums, in particular the complete revision of American History. By infiltrating the Universities they have destroyed the Educational Canon of Western Civilization that bound generations of American college graduates together; and replaced it with transgender studies, diversity classes, identity politics and sensitivity training. By controlling the Main Stream Media they propagandized the news to preach their gospel to the masses on a daily basis. Their more recent innovations include mandatory "volunteering" in community activist organizations, naturally requiring indoctrination into "right-thinking" and learning to avoid "hate speech." Now they may take control of government student loans to ensure that these loans only go to those whose views are approved of by Social Liberals, and only for attendance to colleges that teach the "Politically Correct" curriculum. All of this is to be reinforced through "Hate Crime" legislation, meaning that to murder a man pretending to be a woman is an act of Hate, but apparently murdering an old lady for her jewelry is an act of Love.
ABORTION
The key issue for Social Liberals is the right to exterminate babies in the womb—which they call reproductive health. Though they are largely Feminists, they will defend men who routinely use and abuse women—even those who would leave a drowning woman in a car—providing they support unfettered abortion. And they will fiercely demonize the most accomplished woman who is Pro Life. Social Liberals believe girls as young as 12 have a right to abortion without their parent's approval—or even notification that their child is pregnant. They believe money should be confiscated from taxpayers to pay for this gruesome procedure and that doctors and nurses should be forced to take part in this heinous killing against their will.
FASCISM
The irony in all this to me, is that it is all done in the name of freedom and tolerance; but it is in fact Fascism—a Radical Authoritarian Political Ideology—repressing Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Freedom of Association, and foremost: the Free Exercise of Religion. In addition, Social Liberals are opposed to the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights—the Right to Bear Arms. They know their plan cannot reach its apex against the will of an armed populace. Let us not forget what NAZI means: National Socialist Worker's Party.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Well it's about time James. I'm glad you posted this. I knew you would sooner or later. Now you know you'll get a lot of heat for this but I'm right there beside you Brother. The un-political truth is America is divided & a far division it is. Too many people don't want to stand up & be heard for fear of retribution. God Bless you for telling the truth.
puppascott— Your first sentence says it all, brother. I should have said that! :-)
Your second line is right on, too. And your closer is witty. Thanks, man. I appreciate you.
Very intense, and well spoken.. er written. Quite thought provoking, leaving no room for second guessing or justification. As always I like your pictoral presentation as well.
DGMischSr— I suppose I am the proverbial bull in the china shop? I am fully prepared for the fiery darts, Brother. I want to thank you for the encouragement. God Bless You, too!
emohealer— I don't guess I was pussy-footin' around, was I? :D
Maybe it will provoke some reflection and if so it's done its job. Thank you very much for reading and for your remarks.
My pleasure, as always, James. I appreciate you also.
I shudder at what people do in the name of liberalism.
Thank you for writing this hub James. I really admire the way you write about topics like this.
puppascott— And I thank you for it.
jill of alltrades— Shudder. Great word. You are welcome. I sincerely appreciate the admiration.
Thanks James. Truth and sad.
Yeah, that's about the sum of it. Thanks for the hub
Great job.
Keep on hubbing.
Yep. If they can pass laws to allow everyone to sin all the more "justifiably so" (as they fear no higher justice), the less conviction of their awful ways they will feel. Sick, sick, sick. I can't stand seeing these photos of aborted babies, but it MUST not be turned away from. The evil is growing worse and worse, and the laws are made by people who endorse this evil. I'm deeply grieved to the point only God can comfort me that He will have justice in the end!
Well, I guess I have led a sheltered life. I don't know who half of those people are in the pictures, and I had never, until this moment, seen an aborted baby. Sickening. Funny, I was pro-choice until I became pregnant. That was also before I was saved.
Just the thought that anyone could want to do that to a baby is horrible. Sorry, I'm stuck on that.
These social liberals sound terrible. Has anyone ever seen one? How do I distinguish them from the right wing criminals the other side talks about?
I participate in hubs on both the left and the right, and I have to tell you that they all start feeling and sounding the same after awhile. Can't anybody on either side get a little deeper?
Well James, you'll not be surprised to hear that I think this hub is a negative contribution to the sum of human knowledge. Why are you so afraid of people who do not think exactly like you? But I won't say any more here where I would be surrounded by people who either hate or fear me. Good luck with this 'campaign'.
Steve Rensch - some of us do go deeper and aim to include left and right in our discussions.
Vladimir Uhri— You are welcome. You encapsulated my feelings exactly in three words. You are pithy, my friend! :-)
eovery— Thank you for the encouragement. And I kept it down to 757 words! :D
Carrie Bradshaw— God is extremely patient. If public school children—or college students for that matter—were taught about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and what it all means, we might have a chance to change course as England once did under the leadership of William Wilberforce.
Thank you for your comments.
advisor4qb— Abortion is sickening. The Left has fought fiercely to censor these images, calling them obscene. Imagine that irony. The act is just dandy but showing the world exactly what the act really is, is obscene. That is because is sheds the light of Truth on their dark deeds. And nobody likes that.
I appreciate you for taking the time to read my article and leaving your words.
Steve Rensch— I thought my explanation of this wicked ideology was as deep as possible in nine paragraphs. I provided photographs of nine of them, hoping that would be enough of a sample. Has anyone ever seen one?! We have hundreds of them in our government right now. You can't see them? They are easily identifiable. Well, at least you recognized how horrible this mindset is. That is a start!
Paraglider— I am not afraid of them. And it is not that they "don't think EXACTLY" like me. They are diametrically opposed to the American way of life. Should I be apathetic about the destruction of my homeland and fabric of my society? I certainly won't hate you for your views. You may view this as a "negative contribution" but you might be surprised how many sheeple do not understand these basic concepts. Understanding is a good thing. Every word I said is true (except one, which was hyperbole). And the pursuit of Truth is mankind's highest calling.
Thanks for reading and leaving your commentary. I do appreciate it.
James,Bravo! Last night I couldn't wait to for morning to come to see how the very vocal and overwhelming liberals on hub pages would react to this hub in the comment section. Surely this would spark an intelligent debate on why they support all these liberal causes. Sometimes when people look in the mirror they don't like what they see I guess. The silence is deafening. Not even one Fox News comment? At least Paraglider offered his overall dissatisfaction with the hub although it would have been nice to see him go into more detail as to why he thinks this hub is such a "negative contribution." DK
DK5 - If you read my bloodless revolution hub you'll understand that I have no interest at all in lef/right bashing sessions. We need to unite to face up to the real enemy of all society and the very real problems they are creating. In other words we need to approach difficult times with a degree of maturity.
Radical liberal ideology has a throttle-hold on our government that far exceeds their numbers. There's more going on here than meets the eye. We war not against flesh, but against principalities (ie, spiritual powers). If this is the time spoken of in Revelation (and I believe it is) then, "Satan has been cast down to earth and he is full of wrath, knowing his time is short".
DK5— I appreciate the laudations!
I would check back later. I think any Social Liberals who read this page probably need to regroup. But I expect they will be here later after they recover. I would be very interested to hear how they justify these positions. I am afraid most of them are in la-la land.
I saw one on Paraglider's latest—and excellent I will add—Hub actually correct another commenter who had said Obama was a Liberal—and meant it as a compliment. Get this now—this Hubber said, "Obama is not a Liberal. He is a Centrist." This is the kind of denial that prompted this Hub. When you have one of the top rated Hubbers insist that a man with the most Liberal voting record in the Senate—# 1 out of 100—who is easily the most radically liberal President ever—making FDR look like Pope Benedict—is a Centrist! That's when you know somebody has no clue about reality.
Thanks for reading and leaving your incisive remarks.
Paraglider— I agree with what your Hub says. But I want you think more deeply and clearly about your reaction to this Hub. The very fact that you view this Hub as "bashing" when in fact it clearly lays out, factually, the worldview of the powers that be in my country, tells me that their views are so reprehensible that to state them clearly is perceived as bashing. I would be more interested to know what I said that is not the Truth. Because the Truth is important to me. And I firmly believe my facts above are irrefutable.
But I do agree with your overall view and intend to comment on your fine Hub shortly.
All I can say is, scary.
Hxprof— Oh, I agree with you completely. Every Word you said is True. Thank you for adding more Truth to this thread.
Cari Jean— Indeed it is! Thanks for saying so.
Hi James! Lone Demo MM signing in here. Not gonna bash you or trash you -- hope that doesn't disappoint anyone:-). As I have said elsewhere (most recently on a comment to one of Puppascott's hubs), I appreciate the opportunity to learn how others think and view the world and our country. This hub does an excellent job of explaining point by point the many areas Social Liberals are diammetrically opposed to Conservatives.
Having read your other hub I must comment that this one has quite a bit more emotion -- but that is to be expected.
What pains me, and I mean this in all sincerity, is that our country has become so polarized. Why must everything be an either/or? Guess I have no future in politics, as I'm the great mediator, always trying to bring people together in the middle to reach consensus and get to a win/win.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your views. Your friend, MM. P.S. At least we agree on music:-)!!!
Do you really believe all liberals are anti-American? I think some of my leanings are slightly liberal, and I have always loved the American flag. However, sometimes I am critical of our nation's policies because we do not always make the right decisions. Even people who are considered patriots such as Abraham Lincoln protested against the Mexican-American War, which goes to show protest is just that, not agreeing with certain policies.
Being patriotic means you can see the good of your country, but you are not afraid to speak up when bad things happen too. If no on had ever had divergent opinions the Civil Rights movement and many other cornerstones of what makes America a much better place today never would have come to pass.
James - what balm to rest at last, in the truth. You have outlined these truths perfectly and I agree with every last word you wrote. I do not agree that you are bashing the other side for stating the truth. It must be said and we must all stick by it. And I don't agree that we should "meet in the middle". Some things have no middle and it is most definitely "either/or" (sorry MM, but this is where we split). Is murder something we can say is "sometimes" okay? Is demanding everyone think as the social liberals do okay? Because that's what they are DOING. Not saying in just words, not discussing to meet in the middle, but demanding that it's their way or no way.
They have forced their propaganda into our schools. Now, our form of government is no longer taught. Kids are getting essay topics assigned to them like "write about how government control over business is the best way to handle economics" (I kid you not - a friend's 16-year-old came home with this just the other day). What about how a free market works? What about the Constitution and how it guarantees certain rights? But they're not teaching that anymore.
Keep at it James. This is an excellent hub and it can't be said enough.
The difference between you and me, James, is that I don't believe I know life or God better than you, but you think you know those things better than I. So you are willing to use the word "truth" as a bludgeon, rather than a door opener. Consequently, the word loses its meaning.
When I was teaching history in a high school in Milwaukee a million years ago, I was bothered that the 16-18 year olds I was teaching were so sure about what life was and wasn't. So I and another teacher who coached football with me staged a fight at the beginning of one day. He bummed a cigarette from me every morning, and the kids knew it. So on this one day he came in, demanded a cigarette as usual, I said "no" and told him to get the hell out, he started abusing me verbally, I gave him a shove, and he left the room yelling that this would not be the end of this. Feigning great upset, I told the kids that this would be going to the principal, that they were the only witnesses, that I needed them to write down exactly what they saw, and I stormed out. The next morning, I read the witness accounts back to the kids. No two of them were even remotely similar. Not one kid had lied, but there were at least 21 "truths" in that room. The stunt almost got me fired, but at least me and the kids could start talking real after that.
Steve - one's observations are not always the truth, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Fascinating story by the way, you must have been a very good teacher :)
James - I used the word bashing and Steve used bludgeoning. Steve is a thinking Christian and you'll probably accept that I'm a thinking Rationalist. Maybe, just maybe, you might need to think a little more deeply about why we are saying these things.
Your Conservative hub highlights the best of conservatism, while this hub picks on the worst of liberalism. I recently ran a thread on the Religion forum called "What is the best you have learned from a religion or philosophy other than your own". The results were excellent. I suggest you might apply a little of that attitude to your own thought process, instead of dismissing it as moral relativism.
Well I am not an American so will pass this one. I feel much of this hub is way off the mark but there you go. I would like to think that I have a liberal mind, but perhaps my meaning of liberal has a different meaning to yours. For one thing I have been married 37 years to the same guy.
Intersting read though and I do like to read other people's viewpoint
Mighty Mom— You are welcome here, MM. It also pains me to see this polarization. It is unfortunate that while middle ground can be found on many issues, others are rather black or white, and therefore resist compromise. I don't know how this will play out. It may be best to split the United States into two nations, so that each side can live in a society that represents the kind of world they long to live in.
Thanks for the acknowledgment of my music. That is kind of you. I appreciate the warm sincerity of your remarks. And I thank you for your visit.
SweetiePie— I believe they are Anti the America envisioned by the Founding Fathers. You are absolutely a good citizen to be opposed to, and protest certain policies of, the government. And I am glad you love the Flag. And I agree with you, that much good has been accomplished by change in the past of our Nation. Your comments are well received and I am glad you came by to make them. Thank you.
Madame X— I am pleased to provide the unction. :)
This was not written for bashing. I studied the words, the proclamations, the actions of Social Liberals for years. I spent weeks researching this particular article. Not to bash. To truly represent what their worldview is. If I have represented it wrongly, I won't mind being corrected. If they look at it and say, "Yea. That's what I believe," then how can it be bashing? I think this is a touchy area because many folks would rather not have it exposed so nakedly to where all can see it for what it is.
Sadly, you are right. Most young people don't know a thing about our Founding Documents—and they certainly do not understand what they mean.
Thanks for the affirmation. I always enjoy your discerning eye.
Steve Rensch— I did not mean to imply that I know more about life or God than you. I believe I have accurately represented the political ideology of Social Liberals, based on extensive research (knowing the fact checkers would stop in.) If I have portrayed them inaccurately, please let me know how so. (Other than one word I did use as sarcasm.)
I understand about the conflicting reports given by eyewitnesses. That does not mean that there is an objective Truth about what really happened though, does it? Despite their subjective reportage, the objective Truth did exist about what happened between you and your cohort. Did any one of your students get the story right?
Madame X— I'll agree with you that Steve probably is a fine teacher and he coaches sports, too. And in sports you have umpires and referees who do make mistakes in their calls sometimes. But what really happened on the field of play really happened, nonetheless. And with slow motion replay, we can nearly always determine the Truth.
Paraglider— I appreciate your point of view. And there is much I can learn from you. I believe any political ideology can be described. I believe I described it as it is. If not, I am willing to stand corrected. Thank you for your comments.
Anything I said here, has been espoused in public countless times by Social Liberals. I don't think they would disagree with what I said.
ethel smith— Perhaps you, like me, are a Liberal in the Classic sense of the word. That is not the same ideology I am addressing here. This is about Social Liberals, or Progressives. Liberal as in Liberal Arts has a completely different meaning.
I appreciate you taking the time to read and for letting me know you did. Congratulations on the long, successful marriage. That is an amazing accomplishment in these postmodern times.
Thanks James. We have cetainly had our ups and downs, in the normal sense :)
I do try and allow for different strokes for different folks, as long as people are not suffering or causing suffering. Working on a hospital ward puts lots of lives struggles into perspective.
I do know that I cannot abide injustice of any form or predjudice.
James,
Another excellent hub and the feed back from both sides is encouraging. This is what the country needs, discussion. Honest perhaps even sometimes brutal discussion. I still believe a larger role in all this is coming your way.
James, now don't you go confusing them with FACTS,there is a pity in what say in that they don't undersatand it and probably have difficulty in actually reading it. The sad thing is that every clear thinking person is accepting it.
I do believe it is time we collectively got off our behinds and stopped talking about it and hit the liberal press and every means of putting a stop to it.
The ACLU is without doubt the gratest threat to National Security in this country and if the are not stopped soon will reduce the US to a third world country, indeed, we are getting close already!!!
Great Blog James, I only hope it is not too late
Geoff
James, thanks for another educational hub. They teach nothing about real history in school as highlighted by the fact that I did not know that NAZI stands for Nationalist Socialist Workers Party. Wow!
You are absolutely right about how these policies are insidious and lead to horrors like abortion. A while back, I commented on another hub in agreement about not putting up pictures of aborted children to shock and disgust people to make them aware of the truth. I am still not sure. The picture above brought the reality home for me again, but it also took away from the eloquent if zealous words next to it and after the picture. It brought your point home but at the same time it created an emotional response that clouded my ability to think about your article.
I have a friend on Hubpages that was offended not so much by the content I think, but by the tone. You do make me want to rally with you, and maybe that is exactly what you're supposed to do here on HP. You would make an excellent fundamental Baptist preacher - I mean that as a compliment. But I can see why my friend was turned off.
Sorry for the sting brother. You do speak the truth, of that I am sure because you are using facts and your reasoning is clear and logical. I also thoroughly enjoyed reading this educational hub, (and it turned my stomach as you clearly outlined the left overthrow of morality and conservative values) and I am thankful for it.
I have to ask, what did you mean by, "but apparently murdering an old lady for her jewelry is an act of Love." Did you mean libs condone euthanasia and euthanasia could easily be used as a means to a helpless sick person's money? Or was that a reference to letting murderers on death row free, (like the wave of sympathy for "Tookie" in California a few years ago)?
God bless you brother.
ethel smith— Yes. Working in a hospital ward certainly is a different view of life. There are things more important than politics. Love for one! Hope for another. Faith for a third. :-)
Thanks for the perspective.
Robert— Maybe I can get on Geraldo Live! :D
Discussion is what I'm all about. So far, so good.
I appreciate you dropping in with the encouragement, Brother!
Geoff Parnell— High Praise indeed! I cannot thank you enough. You see it. You get it! The ACLU is the political arm of Satan. And that shouldn't hurt anybody's feelings because any member of that organization doesn't believe in him anyway.
I so appreciate you chiming in. It is very good to hear from you again.
Alexander Mark— The use of the word "Love" there was pure sarcasm—the only use of sarcasm in the piece by me. I just wanted to contrast it with "Hate" as in "hate crime."
But, Social Liberals do tend to ignore victims of murder and focus on the societal problems that caused those fine murderers to go bad—since they don't believe in the concept of evil. UNLESS . . . the murder victim was killed because of an unacceptable thought about a "special" group in the killer's mind. How pathetic is that?!
Those pictures of aborted babies are disgusting to me as much as anybody. But all these years of hearing about "fetal material" has led me to think, "Maybe these people really DON"T KNOW what they support." It's possible.
I did not intend to have a harsh tone. I thought I was waxing philosophical. Tell your friend I apologize for offending his or her sensibilities.
Thank you for your insightful commentary.
Liberal and conservative extremists are such nutcases. Let people be as long as they are not invading your space, I always say.
I'm sure there are or have been at least a few C.E.O.'s who were bums
The letters G.M.come to mind.
I could'nt tell you if they drink or not.! lol!
Paper Moon— I agree with you about extremism. What I describe here, however, is an ideology with millions of adherents. And this ideology is invading our space as it changes our society. I'm not talking about a commune in Oregon here. Perhaps 21% of our population ascribe to these views.
But what you said is sound advice and I appreciate you visiting to say so.
someonewhoknows— Thanks for coming by and leaving word. Always a pleasure.
I hear if obamas healthcare plan goes through we will all be paying more taxes. No surprise there but the reason for doing it is not only healthcare but proping up the dollar using tax money that's supposedly going for healthcare but just as has been done before the bill language may allow the government to use those tax dollars elsewhere.Like interest payments on the national debt to china.
James,
I really have to commend you for the way you respond to peoples' comments. You are such a gentleman too!
You have spoken this very well. The only way you could go deeper would be to address the input of Hollywood, Disney and the Vatican (whose Jesuit priest Engels taught Communism to Marx.)
someonewhoknows— Yes. Taxes will rise dramatically. And the cost of utilities. More crippling still will be the coming inflation from printing all that money.
Thanks for your comments.
SweetiePie— You made me smile! I appreciate your warm remarks. Thank you! :D
When the sons of GOD start letting they're light shine in the darkness in a way that is like the Spirit of Elijah....these folks are going to have stroke!!!
Man from Modesto— Thank you. Hollywood has not been a good influence. I have covered that in a previous Hub. The Vatican? Much about its past is very troubling but in the last 20 years or so I find them to be champions of Truth and so I have changed my opinion—though I am not Catholic.
Thanks for reading my article and leaving your comment.
quietnessandtrust— HA! You've got that right, Brother.
Amazing hub as usual, thank you for shining the light of truth of the real liberal agenda. Brilliant!
Hi James,
Many of our rights as Americans are being insidiously taken from us small bit by bit. This is like an iceburg calving. While each bit of ice is broken off into the sea not noticed by most...once the sea has risen and is flooding areas previously high and dry...it is too late. The deed is done.
We are becoming de-sensitized as a society into accepting ideas that just a generation or two ago would have seemed preposterous.
Without naming names...perhaps some of the readers do not even catch your references to people. (Example...leaving a drowning lady in a car). The younger readers for sure would not know that this refers to Edward Kennedy who went on with his Senatorial career seemingly unscathed by this tragedy.
Your first photo was humorous but most were on the mark as to examples.
I consider this more of an outline as each paragraph could have been an entire hub.
Getting people to discuss this from all angles is thought provoking and may do some good no matter which side of the Liberal - Conservative side they take.
Facts are always good. Well done James!!!
I was young, but I remember the "woman in the car" - thank you Peggy W for the clarification. I must admit to ignorance when it comes to American politics, and to be honest, I don't have a great handle on Canadian politics either, but I do try and keep up...What was that saying? Something about I would rather be thought of as stupid rather than open my mouth and prove it?
You get my drift...anyway, a very thought provoking hub, well worth the read - thanks for the education :)
spiderpam— I so appreciate your visit and your gracious remarks. Thank you and you are welcome.
Peggy W— Thank you for joining the conversation with your wisdom and discernment.
You are right, of course, about my reference to Teddy. That's also him in the photo labeled "Scuba Instructor." LOL
The point being there are no limits to what the Social Liberals will ignore in a man's behavior against women as long as he lines up with them on the only real issue they care about. And what does is say if the only real issue is killing the defenseless?
I agree with you that each of these subtopics requires an entire Hub to explicate fully. I'll have to get around to that. :-)
Thanks again.
Enelle Lamb— I was young then, too! :)
You are most welcome and I thank you for reading my article and leaving your remarks.
This is a very enlightening hub...learned a lot about liberals, thanks.
This is a very enlightening hub...learned a lot about liberals, thanks.
Melody Lagrimas— Thank you and you are welcome. Always glad to illumine. :D
Melody - You didn't learn anything about liberals. James - factual? Please. The details you left our about so many things is sad. You did what Newspapers do, print the sensationalism and leave out a great deal of valid and necessary information. Your right wing friends clearly and happily agreed with you because they want to believe that it is the truth. I actually laughed out loud at some parts. I know what I believe in and ignorance is not one of those things. America is antiquated in her beliefs and ideas, perhaps this is because she is so much younger than Europe and other countries and therefore still learning, so a great deal may sound like it is against the country when in fact it is questioning and demanding more or better from its government. Abortion is a legal right to choose and to privacy. If you don't believe in it, don't ever get one. This is your right. A wonderful thing about America. It has its great , good, bad and awful points. It does not make people anti-american and Jane Fonda, as most of American and its politicians agreed later, was correct. We had no right in Vietnam. It was not our war. No one came over here and interferred in our civil war and we have no right to interfere in any one elses. Our country is run by the wealthiest people. This is Madisonian. The way it was supposed to be and was intentionally created and you think that it should remain the same? Isn't this a government FOR the people? Or should just certain people get to have their say and the poor and down trodden shut the hell up? A picture of some strange guy and you call him a typical liberal? Could you be MORE one sided? Please...it makes your whole hub suspect. That was just too ignorant for words. The TOLERANCE extends to EVERYONE. Even the ones who tolerate only those like themselves. Acceptance even. What God intended for all his children, not just the ones YOU Right wingers choose. I even tolerate you guys and thats not easy. The ACLU? You mean those bas****s who defend the bill of rights??? How dare they!!! I could go on and on but I won't. There is no point. It will change nothing...wow, I must not be a liberal at all..!!
"Abortion is the taking of a life." -- Former Planned Parenthood Medical Director Mary Calderone, who is pro-choice [American Journal of Public Health]
You have the right to take human life?
WOW. People mention God, yet they destroy the life He tries to bring in this world.
Moonchild60— Thank you for your commentary. I have read your entire missive and I see nothing wrong with your point of view. I do have a couple of questions. If my page is not factual—what errors did I make? Specifically, what did I write that is in error?
May I ask for ONE part at which you laughed out loud?
One thing I never said was that Social Liberals believe in ignorance. So, there you are refuting a point I didn't make, nor do I think it is the case.
I understand that Social Liberals believe our system of government is antiquated. I just don't agree. I believe our Founding Fathers were the greatest group of men ever gathered together at any one time in one place in the history of the world. And that they constructed our Founding Documents to last forever, knowing as they did, that human nature does not change; fads and emotions change. These documents are the oldest Documents still in force in the world—older than Europe's; and have been imitated in more countries on earth than any political system ever invented by far.
Abortion rights were implemented in this country unconstitutionally. I would like to know how you justify the murder of 55 million babies with a clear conscience. I am not saying that to inflame you—why should it? Nothing wrong with it, right? I really do wonder how this can be defended by people. I do not understand it. Obviously, I cannot get an abortion. It is possible that one of my children could be murdered in the womb, if I messed with that kind of a woman. Thank God I don't. That possibility makes it my business. It is a national holocaust just as bad as The Holocaust.
Next, you are saying that posing with enemy soldiers, while holding their weapons, just before and after they were shooting at American boys is not Anti-American? If not, is there any action a person could take that would be Anti-American?
Vietnam was not a civil war. It was a totalitarian regime in the north bent on conquering a democracy in the south. That is in no way historically equivalent to a part of our country trying to secede from a UNION.
All countries are, and have been, run by the wealthy. Yes? Any exceptions you would care to name?
The poor should do something to help themselves. I believe it is one thing for ME to take part of my earnings and help the poor. I believe it is something else entirely for YOU to take my money to help the poor. Do you see the difference?
That strange guy is Senator Al Franken, Democrat from Minnesota. I wouldn't say he was ignorant. I didn't. He was an actor.
I do tolerate everyone. Show me an example of me personally being intolerant of someone, please. Tolerate means to allow other people to have their views and beliefs. I haven't deleted your comment.
The ACLU has damaged this country more than any organization in its history. Surely you can see that?
I do appreciate the dialog. You make some valid points. Some things you said puzzle me. But maybe I puzzled you. I would be most interested in what I said that is not true about Social Liberals. Thanks for your commentary. It's well done.
jaynap01— Is this addressed to me? I am pro-life as pro-life gets. Of course it is taking a life. "IT" is alive . . . then "IT" is dead. What could be simpler to understand?
One other thing, MoonChild, I have never seen anything like what I wrote in any newspaper. I wouldn't have written it if I had.
Dear Lord, send us the Rapture now.
James,
As always well written and articulate. Now I will tell you how wrong you are.
To define social liberalism nine or ten different ways is not defining anything at all. Liberals cannot be Socialist and Facist at the same time. They are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum.
As for arbortion, yes the picture you showed is shocking and I don't agree with censorship of any kind. But that picture does not depict 90% of the arbortions that occur. It is an extreme to prove a point, nicely done though. Even many liberals, including myself, think that a fetus that can survive outside the womb should be protected. Decisons need to be made between a woman and the doctor, but at some point the state has the right to intervene (which is what Roe v. Wade stood for)
Lastly, on Patriotism, to truly be a Patriot means to do more than wave a flag. It means to stand for the values of what this Country was founded upon. Free Speech, Free Press etc. We only truly understand these rights when they are tested. The test comes when someone stands and says something that eats at your soul. A true patriot allows them to speak understanding that you have every right to stand and say the exact opposite. Someone with questionable patriotism tries to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting them from speaking again, forgetting that the Constituion was not created to define what its citizens could and could not do, but rather was designed to define what the Goverment could not do.
But as always debate is good and you make a good case.
MindField— LOL Are you ready?
bgpappa— You always present sound reasoning in a calm way. Thank you for your commentary.
I disagree with your 2nd paragraph. According to my dictionary Fascism means:
Radical Authoritarian Political Ideology
It can be right or left. Hitler was a Fascist and the head of a Socialist Party. Thinking they are oppostise has been a very successful ruse by Leftists. Think about it carefully. Radical. Authoritarian. Political. Ideology.
I am glad you believe the unborn have some rights. 75% of the Democrats in Congress voted against the partial birth abortion ban (It passed anyway) and then the ban was challenged in court by social liberals, all the way to the Supreme Court (they lost). I applaud your position, but you are in the minority among social liberals.
I agree with your view of Patriotism. Again, this is a minority view among social liberals. But it is your view and I am glad to hear it.
No "side" is monolithic. I did my best, after weeks of research, to describe the world view of the social liberal political ideology in 757 words. I suppose you subscribe to some of it, but not all of it. And that is every bit your right, sir. Thanks for visiting and leaving your words.
Thank you James for welcoming disagreement and you know you are always welcome on my liberal rantings to set me straight.
Classical Socialism and Facists are opposites and Hitler's socialism was something totally different. But I wonder who was more of a threat, Obama's economics or Bush's limiting freedoms. Good arguments exist on both sides I guess.
As for the partial birth abortion, 75% of Dems did vote against that ban, but a majority of those would have supported it had it contained health of the mother provisions. But on the arbortion debate, there is room to find middle ground - lessening the number of unwanted pregnacies for one. But the politicians, right and left, only like to argue the extremes. There is no more statesmanship left in Politics, and I believe that is why the Country it is in the position it is more than Liberal or Conservative beliefs.
James if what you say about Fascism is true radical Authorian political ideaology then the central government would have to be under the control of conservatives and liberals as is in America's political economic system.The only difference would be which side is in control at any particular time and with slightly differnt ideologies.One side spends more than the other,on social programs and the other side spends more on military and tax cuts for the wealthy.But they both play their roles well.Just like good actors in a play or movie.
bgpappa— You are welcome. Regarding the so called "health provision" we all know that has been extended to mean anything—which means it means nothing. "Having this baby might put me in a bad mood," is reason enough. I agree that damage has been done by many politicians of various ideologies. But it is my belief that the changes in American policy beginning with the New Deal opening the door to a coddling of the citizens, making them helpless; vastly accelerated by the Great Society; and now . . . if the government taking over GM, the largest insurance company, some of the biggest banks, and soon the 1/6 of our entire economy (health care) . . . if that is not radical, in the context of the history of the United States and our Founding Documents . . . then radical no longer has meaning as a word. If naming over 30 czars—unelected and not accountable to Congress—is not Authoritarian in view of our history of seperation of powers . . . if all of this does not proceed from a definite politic ideology whose origins are easily identifiable . . . then I am wrong. It is not Fascism. I do appreciate a good debate. And you are an articulate spokesman.
someonewhoknows— hmmm . . . Conservatism, in its true meaning, is to conserve what has been learned from those who came before us, recognizing it is of great value, and that our generation doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, and we aren't necessarily more brilliant than those of older times. Specifically, in this case, it means conserving the nation as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, and the values, customs, and traditions that made this country the greatest ever. We should be aware the United States is no accidental tourist. What now is being thrown away, produced a fantastic nation—if one casts a discerning eye at the history of government and societies the world over, throughout recorded history.
Don't have much time, but you nailed it with this hub.
petsnakes— Thank you!
Do not be deceived by fascism versus socialism for both are the constructs of Zionist Jews or better and Biblically known as Canaanite Jews. These are people who say they are Jews but in Truth they are not. They are descended from Cain through Naamah (Noah's wife) and Ham who had incestuous relations with his mother. The Canaanite Jews form the financial arm of the Synagogue of Satan with Rome (Babylon) being the religious arm. This is the Revelation whore (Rome) which rides on the back of the Beast (Canaanite Jewish usury or the world's (Rothschild's) banking system)
Canaanite Jewish money via New York financed the Bolshevik revolution through Lenin and Trotsky (both Canaanite Jews)
Skull & Bonesman Bush senior's father backed Hitler via I G Farben in the1930's. This means that Hitler was also financed by Canaanite Jews. Hitler himself was rumoured to be a Rothschild bastard. The so called Holocaust was contrived in order for Rothschild to start the counterfeit state of Israel. The Star of David is an occult symbol and is Rothschild's flag not King David's flag.
Hope this helps to clarify your understanding
Good luck with this guy, James ;)
Paraglider— Thanks! :D
yes2truth— I am not deceived by fascism vs socialism for I have stated clearly I believe they are, or can be, one and the same.
I have heard this "false Jew" versus "true Jew" theory before. From whence does this information come?
What does King David's flag look like?
As for Jewish bankers, the Rothschilds in particular, controlling the world's money supply, "The House of Rothschild" by Niall Ferguson (2 volumes) would be my recommended reading, for what I view as an objective look. And it certainly shows an undue influence of that family, and of Jews, in the creation and control of financial instruments, considering their small numbers demographically.
As for Jews creating destructive and damaging theories and ideologies(Marx, Freud, et al.) that cannot be denied.
But it is Gentiles who borrowed the money from them and signed those contracts to pay that usury. And it has been Gentiles who blindly followed those harmful theories. They were not forced to do so.
I must disagree about the Holocaust. It is not only the ten thousand photographs of dead bodies; films of mass shootings; and the testimony of Jews released from the death camps. Officers from several countries have testified to what they saw in these camps. And better, regular servicemen from America and other countries are on record by the thousands as witnesses to the horrors they saw in these NAZI camps. And Germans themselves, were made to view the piles upon piles of corpses and assists in the burial of them. When you have maybe 100,000 eye witnesses to a crime, that is just to big to wished away as a phony event. I wish you were right. I wish man could not be that heinous. But he is. And there is no doubt the Holocaust happened.
I agree with Paraglider's comment above. You've picked out some of the best features of conservatism in that hub and the absolute worst of liberalism in this one. As I attempted to discuss in comments to my gay marriage hub, very few liberals actually practice true moral relativism. We tend instead to be moral pragmatists: what creates the most harm? I can see how this would look like moral relativism to someone with an extremely rigid moral code, but moral pragmatism requires far more thought and consideration than simply saying that something is morally right in this culture because it's morally right in another culture.
Take abortion as an example. On a personal level, it makes me ill that abortion exists. I would like nothing better than to see it vanish from the planet. However, outlawing it is the worst possible way to go about making it disappear.
Most countries where abortion is outlawed have abortion rates nearly as high as the United States. In a few, the rates are even higher. The difference is, in the United States, 99+% of women will survive the procedure. In countries where abortion is outlawed, women go to back alley practitioners or perform do-it-yourself abortions instead. Many die. Many more end up infertile or otherwise maimed.
For example: http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20090602/ZNYT04/
So, by opposing legal abortion, you're actually supporting the death of both fetuses and their mothers - two deaths instead of one.
Moreover, infanticide rates in countries where abortion is illegal are often off the charts. If it comes down to a choice between a fetus being surgically killed and removed without serious danger to the mother, or the same fetus being born only to be beaten, drowned, garrotted, exposed, or starved to death, then please, bring on the surgical instruments! An estimated 15-20% of all children ever born have been deliberately murdered by their parents.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Infanticide
Outlawing abortion won't make the conditions that cause it go away. It will, instead, raise the death toll and make the babies and their mothers die in even more horrible ways. This is one case where moral rigidity is obviously counterproductive, so why not work instead to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare"?
Also, trying to claim Hitler is some kind of socialist earns you both a chip over the Godwin's Law square on your Internet Argument Losing Bingo card and a history lesson. Pretty much the only thing Hitler hated as much as Jews was communists and socialists. They were the first people he started persecuting, even before he started passing anti-Jewish laws. Hitler and the Nazis were fascists, a right wing ideology:
I think the only way to "fight" abortion is to share the gospel and keep the hope of changed hearts and lives. I wonder sometimes if women realized they might die through the procedure, they might be more careful not to get pregnant and put themselves at risk. However, as you said, kerryg, it didn't reduce the number of abortions, but increased the death toll from just that of the fetus to include the mother. This is such a very sad thing.
kerryg— OK. If what is right varies from culture to culture—that is the very definition of moral relativism and in fact one of the main points used by its apologists.
I do not believe your statement that there is just as much abortion where it is illegal. But I am willing to follow whatever link you can give me that proves this idea. Since 1973 there have been 1.5 million abortions a year in the US. Do you honestly believe there were that many in the US in 1972? 1955? 1910? Studies by the DHHS show they were in the thousands. Not the millions. 39 women died from back alley abortions in 1972. I know quite a few women who are infertile now from legal abortions. Why not keep it legal. Look at the photo and you tell me. Rigidity indeed.
Wait a minute: did you just write that 15-20% of all the children ever born were murdered by their parents? Hell, no wonder you'll believe anything. You must know a few hundred people. Let's say 300. So, of the people you know, 50 or 60 of them murdered their children? Tough crowd you hang with.
What about the term National Socialist Workers Party don't you understand? It's anagram is NAZI. You don't believe that?
I'll read your links now and post another response.
Thanks for your commentary. You have certainly added another dimension to the discussion.
kerryg— I went to the Wikipedia link you gave me and found these words (brackets mine):
Fascism comprises a radical and authoritarian [unelected czars] political ideology [political correctness, sensitivity training, and hate crimes legislation] and a corporatist economic ideology [State takeover of banks, insurance companies, auto manufacturers, health care].
Fascist governments suppress criticism [Fairness Doctine] Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation. Fascism is much defined by what it opposes, what scholars call the fascist negations - its opposition to individualism [political correctness], rationalism, liberalism, conservatism [no doubt]. In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" [an oft quoted term by social liberals] in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism [thought and speech police] of unrestrained capitalism [leveling of outcomes through redistribution and affirmative action]. This was to be achieved by a form of government control over business and labour [as is happening today in America](called "the corporate state" by Mussolini)
Does any of this resemble anything you see going on in our country in 2009 to you? Does it resemble the teachings of Saul Alinsky? Thank you for helping me prove my own point. :D
As for the infanticide article, I will research that today and respond.
The abortion in Tanzania, what the heck, I'll respond to that later. First I'll see how the rest of their medical care stats compare with ours, Malaria for instance. If more Tanzanians die of Malaria than they do here, would the solution be to inject people here with Malaria?
Carrie Bradshaw— Changing hearts and minds is the key. That's why I show the photos. Hoping there is a conscience in some of these people.
Historical data on illegal abortions is hard to find, because most were not reported. The same is true today, but the World Health Organization estimates that there are 19 million unsafe abortions in the world every year, killing about 70,000 women, or 13% of maternal deaths worldwide, and causing serious complications for about 2 million women.
The 15-20% figure is astonishing, isn't it? However, before you pooh-pooh it, consider that this is all children born throughout history and around the world. Some societies have had much higher infanticide rates (even up to 40-50%), while others, such as ours, have much lower rates.
In many pre-industrial societies, for example, it was standard practice to kill any child that was born deformed because the family simply couldn't afford to feed an unproductive mouth. Girls were also common victims - in Delphi, Greece in 200 BC only 1% of the 6000 families in the city-state had more than one daughter. Female infanticide in poor areas and sex selective abortion in richer ones remains a common practice in India and China today. Illegitimate babies are the final main category of victim. In Victorian England, 1 in 3 babies was illegitimate and a very high percentage of these babies were abandoned at orphanages or killed by "baby farmers" - men and women who would take the baby in for a fee and then quietly neglect it to death.
Infanticide rates in the modern United States are low in part because abortion and contraception have reduced the number of unwanted children born, while advances in health care have made it possible for "abnormal" infants to become productive members of society and social advances have made girls valued as highly or almost as highly (depending on the individual family) as boys.
The photo, by the way, is from a late term abortion, which make up less than 1% of all abortions and are nearly always performed because of severe deformities in the child or serious health risks to the mother.
I know very well you don't believe that but you can consider yourself lucky that you have the luxury of not believing it! Due to serious health complications with her pregnancy, my aunt narrowly avoided needing a late term abortion. She was lucky, in the end, but not all are:
kerryg— "The 15-20% figure is astonishing, isn't it?"
It is astonishing because it is not true. Or do you have 50 or 60 friends who have murdered their children?
"The photo, by the way, is from a late term abortion, which make up less than 1% of all abortions and are nearly always performed because of severe deformities in the child or serious health risks to the mother."
Horseshit. A study commissioned by Congress showed that 91% of partial birth abortions were merely for inconvenience.
"Infanticide rates in the modern United States are low in part because abortion and contraception have reduced the number of unwanted children born"
Is that so? I take it infanticide ran rampant around the country in say 1955? 4,100,000 children were born in 1955 including me—way before legal abortion and the pill. You are suggesting that 800,000 of them were murdered by their parents? That is astonishing alright.
I'll give you a statistic to ruminate on. The accepted number for illegal abortions in the United States in 1972 is 17,000. After Roe v Wade it exploded to 1,500,000. Why? Because the government said there was nothing wrong with it; that in fact due to "emanations from penumbras" in our 14th Amendment, it was a newly found "right." It just took 200 years to find it. I'll give you a proposition. That number—17,000—is exactly the number of murders in the United States last year. How many murders would there be if it was perfectly legal—and in fact, a Constitutional Right? Anybody that inconveniences you, or gets in the way of your plans: just kill them. No penalty. In fact, Planned Parenthood will help you do it with government funds. How many murders would we have then? I submit my estimate is 1.5 million because there are that many people in our country with no conscience. You may say, "We can't do that. It would be wrong!" Using your logic, I would say, "But there are going to be murders anyway. It would be better for them to be safe, legal and rare."
Did you bother to read my previous comment? I didn't say 15-20% of all children born in this society today, I said 15-20% of all children born ever. That includes societies like the modern United States where the rate is relatively low (although still higher than it should be, as I'll get into in a moment) and societies like ancient Greece and Renaissance Italy, where there is evidence it reached as high as 50%.
The United States has a long history of infanticide, although it has not been socially accepted since the days of the Puritans, when a number of Puritan states had "stubborn child" laws entitling fathers to bring their "stubborn or rebellious son" before a court of law and have him executed.
The modern United States continues to have relatively high infanticide rates compared to many other first world countries, but relatively low rates from a historical perspective. From 1966 to 1975, about 3% of all reported murders in the US were children (of all ages) killed by their parents. In the 80's about 1% of all murders were children under the age of one killed by their parents. As you can see, this is historically a low rate, but not an insiginificant one.
kerryg— So, is infanticide wrong? Is it always wrong, sometimes wrong or never wrong?
I think I'll give them a miss
Very harsh Hub James. I consider myself to be quite a tolerant person...to a degree. However, I think abortion at any term for any reason is wrong. I can't see the justification for any reason!
I'll admit, if I would've known that picture was in your Hub, I would've avoided it altogether. Sometimes we need to see the ills and ugliness of humanity to reaffirm our beliefs.
katyzzz— I am rolling this sentence around . . . I think I'll give them a miss? What does that mean?
Cayenne_Pepper— I am sorry if it is harsh. I didn't mean for it to be. That picture is ugly alright. I am curious how anyone can compartmentalize that in their minds to reach the conclusion that this is a good thing.
I appreciate you for taking the time to read it and leave your comments. I agree with you.
If anybody wonders how social liberals can twist their minds into not only acceptance of these beliefs but the vicious defense of the indefensible——or if you are a social liberal who will give me five minutes that will boost your self-realization——please read this Hub.
This is a brilliant description that those like Steve and Paraglider fail to see. I may be more militant than most but I do not see any reason why we should "unite" as paraglider suggests. It seems that they would rather ignore what the true problem is in the hopes we can all just get along, I don't want to get along I want to destroy what these people stand for and salt the earth in my wake! I will leave it at that and I am glad you happened along one of my hubs and became a fan, after reading this I am definately one of yours, thanks again!
A Texan— First things first: I love the avatar! :-)
I humbly accept your compliments. I agree that though I have no doubt their hearts are in the right place, a good place, appeasement with those who want to destroy something as precious as the United States of America will not work. I hope that I am making an impression on some of the hearts on the other side—whether they admit it or not isn't the issue.
I actually bookmarked your home page because your titles were so compelling (important BTW) that I want to read them all. I will visit you over there soon. Thank you so much for coming to see my latest work.
Oh James - You keep trying to say that abortion is infantcide and it isn't. How old are you? I remember all the stories of babies found dead in dumpsters, shallow graves, etc...I remember stories of unwanted children being abandoned or women dying trying to do "at home" abortions out of desperation. I remember reading about them and seeing them on the news. More unwanted, abused children in the world is the answer? Do you think if abortion is illegal people will just stop having unsafe careless sexual relations? Yeah, right. I do not believe in late term abortions because at some point it stops being a fetus and becomes a baby that could survive outside the womb. You know I had a friend years ago that had a miscarriage and wanted a funeral for her unborn child. The church told her exactly this "The child was not born yet and therefore did not have a soul". They refused to do it. This was the 70's before the church finally realized it had to take a position on the subject. Funny how they changed their minds...
I don't get you people at all...we can send grown men and women to be killed in senseless wars that I would bet my own life on, God does not approve of, but we can't kill a potential life prior to its completion. We MUST keep gun laws so the thugs and lunatics can continue to kill innocent people in the street, but discontinuing a pregnancy is vile. okay....
You are clever and have a back handed way of insulting people so you appear tolerant and I find that offensive. You clearly think liberals are morons and you insult them at every turn, you are not a tolerant person as most Conservative Republican's never are.
"...If not, is there any action a person could take that would be Anti-American?"
Yes, for example one could write hubs against a certain group of people that are American's. Is that not anti-american as well? No matter what your justification you are still Liberal bashing and Liberals are Americans too.
You compare Socialists to Hitler. First I laughed because of the stupidity of it, then I realized your "followers" would actually fall for it. Yes James, all people who believe in a socialistic society or even just some socialist ideas are just Hitler wanna-be's...Good lord...
You keep lumping liberals into a group as if they all think exactly alike. For example, I do not believe a 12 year old can or should get an abortion without their parents consent, or an abortion at all, or even be having sexual relations!!!!
Scientists have proven and I know you Christian right people hate to admit this, but Science has PROVEN that gay people do not choose to be gay and persecuted by you guys...they just ARE. They are also God's children and God wants us to accept and love them.
I knew several young girls when I was younger who I accompanied as a friend to welfare offices for money and food stamps because they were unmarried and had small children. I had my children after marriage and would not even collect unemployment between jobs because I thought it would make me lazy.
I do not believe everyone should live off the government. I believe that there are people in this world that are quite capable and sadly people who simply are NOT and they need a leg up, they need help. We need to take care of those who cannot care for themselves for a plethora of reasons.
I know people who cannot pay for food this month, how will they pay for their own healthcare? Unfortunately, sometimes government is necessary to help those in need. You have money James. I am quite comfortable as well....now. Wasn't always the case. I pay a fortune in healthcare now. I feel like the insurance company is ripping me off every month to the tune of $900 for my husband and I. If you think of a better way then socialist healthcare and poor people doing without, please let me in on it...How can we have affordable healthcare for EVERYONE? Because every human being deserves that much.
James , This was a very serious Hub. It deserves to be judged for its value after a long thoughtful moment so I'll hold my sarcasm. Abortion is a truely horrible option and should be considered only in the most serious situations. I feel we shouldn't take any lifesaving procedure off the table. I think I could accept it for rape, incest, or for the life of the mother if it is determined by a true medical authority its necessary. No abortion for anything but the life of the mother after the first tri-mester. Under no circumstance should abortion for birth control be allowed and late term and/or partial birth abortions should carry the same penalties as murder. That said our country has taken a position that children aren't as valuable as adults, this has to change! Its not just abortions its also the same for abuse and neglect victims.
As for the political terminology a facist is a facist. Evil lives at both ends of the spectrum, I've always viewed political position as a circle. You really need to be some where near the middle to be on the right path the farther you go from center the more opportunities for evil exist. Once you are at the polar opposie of center its all pretty vile, so does it really mater what you call it?
The pictures of aborted people are one of the things I don't like that the right does but the murder of children is so wrong. That's why I always want to know the issue before I declare allegiance. Good job. Peace.
What you have written clearly calls attention to issues that need better concentration. Your voice strongly relays a message about Individuality, connection or disconnection and alerts readers to pay closer attention to those being heard and to those not being heard.
These are hard topics that you have tackled and made evidence of their importance. Well done with spelling it out so straighforwardly.
This is indeed an excellent hub, Very well written. Thank you for being courageous in exposing the social liberals. Keep up the good work.
Finally a minute to give this hub a well-deserved and thoughtful read. Glad I did, as it is as thought-provoking as the opening paragraph promises. As an aside, I will applaud the tasteful and respectful debate that has ensued... from every side of the issue. Having said that, I tend to sit to the right of center, so it is natural that I will agree with everything you said, although, truthfully, I can't speak to the abortion segment because I couldn't leave the text on the screen long enough to read it because of the picture. I did read a comment from one participant that said that abortions like that are the exception rather than the norm... still, for me, one instance of something like that is enough... I can't imagine doing something like that to anyone... for any reason... not even once. It isn't ok to torture people in Gitmo, and it isn't ok to torture a baby like that. Not one detainee - not one baby. Now, I'm not a poly-sci major from a university or anything, but it does seem like the country is having trouble finding a real 'center,' and, truthfully, I really don't believe that we (as a country or a hub community) can. I do believe we should keep trying though.
p.s. I got up at 6am to work on a hub and got lost in this thing... that means you've done your job!
Moonchild60— I didn't say it was infanticide. I'll grant you that eight inches of the birth canal. kerryg was saying we ought to allow abortion because in many cases they'll just kill the kid after it is born anyway.
I am 54. How old are you? Having babies is serious business—it's dangerous, yes. 39 women died of botched illegal abortions in 1972. Way more died in childbirth, sadly. 29,000 people committed suicide. So what? What does that have to do with the morality of killing a living human in the very place designed for its protection during gestation—the womb of its own mother?
The "completion" of life for all of us is death. Abandoned and abused children is certainly a grave problem, but I'm not sure extermination is the best solution.
Just War Theory is a separate Hub, methinks, as it is a deep subject, and in no way related to abortion that I can see. Gun laws aren't related either but I'll tell you this about that in plain language: 100,000 protecting themselves from serious crime last year with a gun. The number of crimes committed by a registered gun owner was in 2 digits last year. Criminals get guns on the black market. You won't stop that anymore than you'll stop them from getting pot or coke. If you take my gun, I'll be defenseless against them.
I do not mean to be insulting. I am tolerant of other's views; meaning I am not against them having their views. Everyone has a right to their opinion; that doesn't mean their opinion is right. It is not intolerant to disagree.
Hitler called himself a Socialist. Put that word right in his party name. National Socialist Workers Party—NAZI. I didn't make that up. I also acknowledged that no ideology contains a monolithic group of people.
And I hate to say this to you—but you are wrong. Scientists are LOOKING for a "gay" gene but have failed to find one. Please fact check. Even if that were true, humans have all kinds of proclivities that need to be curbed; that aren't good for them or society—surely you agree? Love gay people? Absolutely! We must love everybody.
Welfare is a big subject. It is widely proven that it saps the motivation of a populace to know they don't have to make anything of themselves—and they learn this as youngsters. That would take another Hub to explain the psychology. Charity of the non-governmental type can handle the downtrodden. How many people were homeless or starving in America BEFORE the Great Society? Less than we have now! Because this implied safety net reduces motivation to apply oneself in school, learn a trade, be a good employee. National Health Care? I wrote a Hub last month with this very title. Check it out.
I think you are a fine and compassionate person. I believe your intentions are good. Humans are complex. They are robbed of their dignity by an enabling society, in my opinion. I appreciate your words and mean no insult. You make excellent and valid points and I accept your worldview.
sneakorocksolid— I agree that if a mother's life is in serious physical danger, she should be able to get a court order—with a doctor under oath that she is in danger of dying herself—for an abortion. I'll go along with rape even, since the reproduction act was involuntary. That's it. If you want dance pay the piper.
I appreciate your wise words. Thank you for visiting and joining the conversation.
newsworthy— Thank you for your comments. I agree with you and I appreciate you for taking the time to read my article and leaving the words you did.
cristina327— As you know, when light shines into darkness, darkness liketh it not. :D
Thank you and you are welcome.
Linda Myshrall— I'm glad I "did my job." :-)
I appreciate your thoughtful and insightful commentary. There are strong feelings on these issues. My attempt was to show the underlying ideology that causes people to accept these ideas, which in the scope of human history are radical. Relativism and deconstructionism, primarily. These twin philosophies would have been anathema to people throughout history until postmodern man came along. It is an unmooring. It is dangerous. Because nihilism leads to anything goes. And if anything goes . . .
Just like drivers on a narrow mountain road with steep cliffs on both sides, people need guardrails.
My opinion- you did what you were trying to do, and you did it with great focus and aplomb. As I said, I'm in absolute agreement with you... speaking as one who needs guardrails and training wheels. :)
Linda Myshrall— You know . . . I might just get my old training wheels back down from the attic myself. I appreciate the levity. Thank you very much.
You know James this is going to sound ridiculous after all we have written but I am truly amazed....you don't look anywhere near 54...you are several years older than I am. Didn't see that coming...
Moonchild60—Well, thank you very much. It's all that healthy living! :D
How can you say that you are not bashing liberals? As mentioned above, you use anything that has the word socialist in it, and equate it with American liberals. Being a liberal doesn't make you a socialist, and it sure as hell doesn't make you a nazi. Your entire post seems to be a bunch of random, unexplained, undefended information, most of which you seem to have pulled out of your ass and written in a very biased way.
I really hope I misunderstood your first paragraph, but it seems to say that liberals are atheists, and therefore have no ethical code. Most democrats are christians who definitely follow a moral code. Of those who are atheists, myself included, almost all of them believe in morality. Not believing in God does not mean you believe there is no purpose in life, or that there is no such thing as morality. That sir, is a complete crock of shit.
The anti-American paragraph is another shining example of biased, unintelligent hatred. What exactly is it about liberals that makes them anti-american? Liberals get upset when the government does things they do not agree with, things that they think violate either the constitution, or the best interests of our country. That does NOT mean they hate the country. It means they disagree with something the government does. By your logic, if you ever criticize any bill or government act that comes from a liberal politician, then YOU hate America. You can't just say that everything you believe is American, and anyone who is against you hates their country. One of the central beliefs of our constitution, and our country, is the right of free speech, the right to disagree with the actions of the government. Jackass.
Why do you hate the ACLU? What lawsuits exactly do they have against "any mention of God"? The ACLU exists to defend the constitutional rights of Americans, a very noble cause. Do you hate them because they support homosexuality, something your religion believes is wrong? Should we ignore the seperation of church and state because your God is so damn sure that gay people getting married will destroy the moral framework of our country?
I won't talk much about abortion, because it's already been discussed so much. But, I just want to say again that being pro-choice doesn't make you pro-abortion. It means that you believe the mother should have control over her own body. Many pro-choice people would rather that no one get an abortion, but recognize that illegalizing it doesn't make it magically go away. It just makes people do it in a very unsafe way.
Talking about conservatism, you said that basically, older beliefs are right because they've been followed so long. Well, that's a complete crock too. It is often true that if certain practices work well, they will continue to be used. That doesn't necessarily mean that long standing practices are right. Our country was founded on the backs of slaves, and women were denied the right to participate in our democracy for the longest time. That doesn't mean it was right to treat them as they were treated. Saying "That's how it's always been, so it must be right" does not logically support any argument. You need to give reasons for why your positions are right, not just go on about how evil liberals are.
thurstjm— The Hub is about "Social Liberals", which is a distinct ideology from "Classic Liberals." I wrote about the former not the latter. I said "Virtually all Atheists are Social Liberals" and that is a fact. I never said all Social Liberals were Atheists, nor would I say that because I know quite a few personally who are Social Liberals and do believe in God. I never said Social Liberals or Atheists did not believe in any code of morality. I said they believe in moral relativism. There is a huge difference between the two.
Hatred? Explaining a political ideology is hatred? I don't hate anybody. You have used the word "hate" seven times in your comment—I did not use that word. If you are looking for hate, I would search your own heart because out of the heart the mouth speaks.
Then your whole paragraph is about things I never said. You seem to be arguing about things somebody else said, Lord knows who. I never inferred that to exercise free speech or criticize the government is anti-American. Who attempts to keep ROTC off college campuses? Who protests the military? What kind of people say of 9/11, "The chickens came home to roost" "No wonder after our actions around the world" and on and on and on? Social Liberals, that's who. If you go down the street in any neighborhood that is in an predominately Social Liberals you don't see any American Flags displayed. Find a voting district that has a Republican congressman and ride down a quiet residential street and report back about the rows of American flags on people's porches. Social Liberals don't argue about that point. They say they disdain "nationalism" they are "citizens of the world."
It would take more space than a comment box to explain the devastating damage done to this country by the ACLU. This organization is controlled by demonic forces. But I do not hate them or their members. Their favorite tactic is to find a little town somewhere in middle America, swoop in with a coterie of Left Coast lawyers and sue the town because for 150 years the town seal has a cross on it and no one has ever complained. Sometimes, they actually have a person move to the town first to become their complainant. Then the town consults an attorney who informs the town how the ACLU operates: they have endless funding, they will file countless motions, interrogatories, and depositions, they will appeal at every level. To defend the suit will cost ten years of the town's entire budget—which means no fire department, police department, etc. So they cave in and change their seal because of financial intimidation. They would win the case in a court of law is the point. But they can't afford it. They lose their justice because they don't have the money. This is not an accident. This is the modus operandi of the ACLU.
Our country did not prosper because of the backs of slaves. That is a myth. Our country only became a wealthy nation after slavery ended. And while it existing in the South, the North, without slavery, had five times the wealth. I didn't say liberals were evil. You have made an Ad Hominem attack here.
You are right. You never said they lacked morals, but you definitely insinuated it when you compared them to Hitler, and I consider that an Ad Hominem attack. Though you didn't say directly that liberals lack morals, you did classify them as moral relativists. Btw, Being a liberal does not make you a moral relativist. Your explanation of moral relativism insinuates that they lack morals (they lack definite morals, which leads to moral anarchy), and plainly says that they believe there is no purpose or meaning to human life. So by your definition of moral relativism, and by classifying liberals as moral relativists, you seem to be saying that they are morally bankrupt before you even address any of their positions that might be morally questionable. For the record, moral relativism simply means that situation and society have an effect on what actions can be considered ethical. For example, murder is normally ethically wrong, but if you kill someone in self-defense, because they were trying to kill you first, or you are at war, then that action could be considered moral, in that circumstance.
Another thing about Ad Hominem attacks: Do you truly think that depicting a typical liberal as a fat man in a diaper with bunny ears and a giant stuffed bear is an objective criticism of liberal ideology?
Quote:" I never inferred that to exercise free speech or criticize the government is anti-American. Who attempts to keep ROTC off college campuses? Who protests the military? What kind of people say of 9/11, "The chickens came home to roost" "No wonder after our actions around the world" and on and on and on? Social Liberals, that's who." End Quote.
In this paragraph you say that you don't think criticizing the government is anti-American, but you seem to say that these liberal actions are. I've never heard of any liberal movements to keep ROTC away from colleges, and I doubt that it is a position all, or even most liberals share. However, expressing opposition to ROTC in universities is an expression of free speech, and it is a criticism of the government. Protesting the military is also quite clearly criticizing our government, and is an example of free speech. By ending that statement with "Social liberals, that's who" you insinuate that they are doing something wrong. You then go on to say that liberals don't have flags in their yard, suggesting that what's wrong with their protests against ROTC programs and the military is that they are anti-American or unpatriotic at the least.
You misunderstood my comment about slavery. I never said that our country became wealthy because of slavery. I said that our country was founded on slave labor, which it was. Plantations were economically successful because of free slave labor. My point also had nothing to do with how much slavery helped our country. My point was that at one time, slavery was considered moral, but time has shown that to be false.
Though it may be true you are talking specifically about social liberalism, you are still attacking liberals. The difference between a classical liberal and a social liberal is that a social liberal believes in positive freedoms, which are basically things like more services for the unfortunate to shorten the gap between the wealthy and the poor. Examples are welfare, social security, and things like medicare. These are things that most American liberals support.
Great hub.
Great job again. I hate liberals and hearing what they are doing to our country makes me SICK!
gurgei1— Thank you!
johnb0127— We must not succumb to hate, Brother. We must love them back into the family.
thurstjm— You questioned the existence of any lawsuits against religion in your previous post by the ACLU and I failed to respond because I thought you must be kidding. The majority of ACLU lawsuits are to demolish religion. I will do another Hub about this shortly.
What Moral Relativism means is simple: For most of human history humankind believed in moral absolutes that existed regardless of our opinions. And our pursuit was to find them, understand them, and explain them to others. After Darwinism took hold—the greatest chess move in history by Satan— people like you started to believe that human beings were just monkeys with thumbs and therefore— all truths uncovered by mankind over the past 6000 years were simply social constructs and that in the new reality: there is no such thing as "The Truth." Each person makes his own "truth" subjectively.
The "fat man in a diaper" is none other than your latest United States Senator Al Franken (from one of his movie roles).
If you don't know about protests by Social Liberals against ROTC, I suggest you give Google a try. I don't have time to teach you the basics of life in America. This information, as well as everything I referenced, is easily searched on the internet. You act like you just came out of a nuclear bunker from 1969.
Our country was founded on the Protestant Work Ethic—not slavery. It was founded on the belief in God's Providence. Don't you kids learn anything in school? How old are you?
If you are so proud of the Liberal Programs foisted upon the American public in the last 40 years I must ask you: What have been the results? I suggest you read my other Hubs, such as "Liberty Lost in America"; "Has America Changed for the Better"; "The Progressive Movement"; "Conservative"; "America is Two Nations"— and then come back to me with a well-rounded opinion.
I know that's Al Franken, but I am pretty sure that's not a real picture. http://mediamatters.org/research/200905040004
Either way, it is a ridiculous, negative depiction of someone, and by saying that is a "typical liberal," you are personally attacking them without any evidence, and also making shit up.
About the ACLU, I wasn't doubting that they had lawsuits having to do with religion. I was doubting that that they had lawsuits against any mention of religion, which is completely different. I'm sure the ACLU gets involved in matters of separation of church and state: cases where a certain religion might be endorsed in a public setting. I think this is fair and legitimate. Endorsing any religion over another in a place like a school that has students of many religions and cultures is unfair and unconstitutional. I doubt that they could file a lawsuit simply because someone made a "mention of religion".
Again, you misunderstand me. When I said I had never heard of ROTC protests, I wasn't trying to say that they never happened, only that it's not a widely held liberal position to protest ROTC. That is the opinion of a group of individuals, most of whom happen to be liberal. The main point of that paragraph is that the right to free speech and free protest is central to the ideology of our constitution and that it would be unfair to call someone anti-American for using this right.
Again, about the damn slavery. I've said, twice, that my point is NOT that slaves made our country great, or even had any significant impact on our economy (though I'm pretty sure they did have an impact). My point is that what people see as the best way to live their lives, the way people view morality CHANGES OVER TIME. At one time, slavery was accepted, even though most people now (almost everyone I hope) believe it is an atrocity. It's not always best to blindly accept what others before us believed.
I'm only 19, but I know that our country was founded on the constitution, a document that believes in the separation of church and state and the right for a person to be free and live his life as he chooses, without interference from people who believe they are morally superior to others. It was not founded on God's providence, but rather on the right for everyone to worship as he sees fit.
I'm also old enough to actually know what an Ad Hominem attack is. It translates to "To the man" and means attacking someone personally instead of refuting their arguments.
You said, "I didn't say liberals are evil. You are making an Ad Hominem attack here." That would not be an Ad Hom attack, because I am not attacking you as a person. If anything, what I said would be called "making shit up," which is completely different. However, like I said in my last post, you did strongly insinuate that they were. Moral anarchy sounds pretty close to evil to me.
Suggesting that I am an uneducated child would be an Ad Hominem attack.
"typical liberal" is only an attack if one is utterly devoid of a sense of humor. It is a joke.
Slavery was one of the oldest institutions in the world. It was ended by Europeans and Americans. It still exists in large parts of the world.
I am sorry, sir, but you have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about our Constitution. The Constitution banned the Federal Congress from instituting a National Religion such as they had left in England when attendance on Sunday and tithing were enforced by law. The States could and did have State Religions. And by religions they meant denominations—you couldn't be forced to be Baptist or Episcopalian. The Constitution banned the Federal Government from interfering in any way with Religion—it did not ban Religion from involvement with the Government. The Constitution is available on line. Read it and tell on what page do the words, "Separation of Church and State" appear in the text.
Every single Founding Father DID believe the nation was founded by God's Providence. If they don't teach you that at your high school that proves my point about Indoctrination of the young by Social Liberals.
You first post was not an ad hominem attack? Let's scroll back up there . . . I believe you called me a jackass, seven times accused me of hating people, said my opinion was a crock of shit, said my facts were pulled out of my ass.
Anarchy means no rules or authority. I find it interesting that you would consider that evil. I never said it. But I'm glad you did.
I'm baaaack...Ok first of all Thurstjm I am SO impressed. You are 19? I would love to see how intelligent you are at 30!! Some excellent and well made points here. And getting to the bare bone of the issues was incredibly impressive. Bravo my friend.
Next, lets not confuse "God" with "Religion". Our founding fathers believed in "God" not necessarily "religion" and this is a well known fact, or at least I was pretty certain most people knew this. That is why there is no religion in our government and there never should be. Our country proudly represents all people. Many of our ancestors came here for that reason. Religion creates seperatism and elitism and other "ism"'s that we can live without. God never said "Go forth and create religion and kill each other over it". Yeah, don't think that was the game plan.
My son came home from school in his junior year of high school with a letter asking if he could be approached by the Armed Forces, I said No. He knows who they are, what they do and if he wants to be part of it, he will join himself. I don't see psychologists and retail store owners approaching students in school to elicit their support in their choice of careers. This is my choice and I have a right to it. Parents who want their children to be approached or don't really care said "yeah sure", THAT is America, that is democracy at work.
Christians, oh wow, where does one start. I was born and raised Christian but then I started asking questions and that was shot to hell...oh sorry, heck...There is no hell.
My only problem with Christianity at this moment and I mean like this very second, is that they want to control the country and that is frightening. Furthermore, I don't understand their need to push their ideals and desires on the rest of the world. What makes them THE religion or the BETTER religion? It just comes off as arrogance and is insulting to other religions.
Lets be honest here, you guys swear by a book that was written YEARS after Christ, had no witnesses and was re-written over 50 times that we are certain of. Then your cop out answer to this is "Thats why we call it faith"...that kills me. It says Christ was born during tax season in December, tax season was in August in that part of the world. Any knowledgable Theologist will tell you that Christianity is based on Pagen rituals and beliefs and they have proof on this, their job is to verify and study these things so they can get to the truth and mysteries of the bible. Additionally, and this really only takes a tiny bit of common sense. During the Roman rule clearly there was no Christianity yet. Jesus was still about and Christianity did not come into being until long after he was gone, aabout the 300's A.D. So what were the Romans? Pagans. Caesar and other Emperors even had an Imperial cult. And did our friend Pilot really ask the Jews what to do with Jesus? HA!!! Yeah sure, he was going to ask the opinion of the lowly filthy Jews? I don't think so, he didn't give a damn what they wanted. No one did. They were just slightly above slaves. They were garbage to the Romans. They were Jews for christ sake...whoops...anyway, lots of Jews were crucified back then by the Pagans for talking about their religion. It wasn't allowed. Christians don't have to worry about taking the fall for killing Christ and try to blame the Jews. It was the Pagans!! and you Christians hate them anyway...
And lets not be naive about slavery. We know damn good and well this country made tons of money on the backs of slaves. What do you think the good ole boys were fighting for? If they had to PAY people to work it would cut into their profit margins big time! They may have been ignorant but they weren't stupid.
Yikes they're out inforce! Moonchild whatever you're smoking I want some! Thrustjm, whoa dude, you're not suppose to look directly into the ball with all the mirrors on it! Christians, all you two know about Christians is you hate them and everything they stand for. It could be that your ruled by your own guilt and theres no need, repent! You're welcome at my church we'll help you recover and become an acceptable citizen of our society.
Moonchild what do you know about good ole boys? Aren't you a female? I've never seen you in the duck blind. Thrustjm you could use a few hours in the blind to help reassemble whats left of your manhood. Well I have an idea how about you two get married! Then Moonchild you'll have a bonified cause and Thrustjm you'll have Moonchild! Now wasn't that fun? Peace.
Moonchild60— I have just now published a new Hub to "educate" both you and this boy. "Founding Fathers" is the title and I hope it answers all your questions. It is also my last Hub Page as for the second time in 43 Hubs, the "bosses" have flagged my Hub for excessive quoting. How else can I make you and him understand the Truth? If my own words won't do it I must quote the source.
Goodbye.
sneakorocksolid— I will no longer participate in this community. goodbye
JW, Thats not good! Is there a limit?Peace.
There is a God!
The first amendment says: "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." No law respecting an establishment of religion. I think that's pretty clear. Thomas Jefferson thought so too.
"...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..."
Every single founding father DID NOT believe the nation was founded on God's providence. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both deists. A deist is someone that believes, because of the complexity of the universe, some divine being must have created it. They did not believe in Jesus, they did not believe that God was watching them or gave a shit about what they did. At that time period, it was unheard of to be an atheist, and admitting it would have been a terrible political move. It's entirely possible that they weren't actually deists, but were atheists, and couldn't admit it.
Yes, I called you a jack ass, but that isn't necessarily an Ad Hom argument. If I said, you are a jackass, therefore your ideas are wrong, that would be an Ad Hom argument because you being a jackass has nothing to do with whether or not your arguments are valid. However, I argued that your ideas were misinformed and hypocritical. For these reasons, I deduced that you were a jackass. That is not the same.
It's true that religion can play a part in government. Religious groups can lobby, write letters, and protest to support views they agree with.
When the government says that someone has to pray in school, that is the Government making a law that establishes religion in a public place. That is the government making religion it's business, which is against the first amendment.
The same thing applies for laws against homosexual marriage. There is no logical reason to ban homosexual couples from marrying, or if them using that term really puts a stick up your ass, getting a civil union. Homosexuals are not allowed the same basic freedoms as most Americans because the majority of Americans consider homosexuality immoral. Why do they consider it immoral? Because Leviticus says so. This is a case where the government is basically saying that, the Christian God says what you are doing is wrong, most Americans believe in the Christian God, therefore, you can go to hell and not be married. That is the Government interfering in matters of religion.
Whoa Thrustjm! Does your Mom know you talk like that? Look the infos right your interpretation is wrong, well atleast twisted. The reason people originally came was to move away from religious persecution in Europe. The persecution was based on a state mandated religion. What our founders meant was they didn't want the country to pick a religion and make everybody participate.
I'll tell you are an angry little man! You are going to have to face some facts homosexuality is not a gender therefore you can't apply the same set of standards that you do to heterosexuality. One is naturaly correct the other is fantasy. You should have the rights but before you go saying you're the same as heterosexuals it would be nice if asked us how we feel about it. I know I don't want to be thrown into the same pot and stirred up so it seems theres no differance. There is, and I want a boundry or something thats says there is.
Hey man look, this has always been a majority rule country except for some rare examples. If the majority speaks you should listen not throw little bitch fits. Just go with it because the more negative attention to your cause the more moderates you will lose.Peace.
First of all, I don't have to be gay to believe they should have rights. Secondly, I'm 6'2" and would hardly qualify as an angry little man.
How can you say that homosexuality is unnatural, but heterosexuality isn't? What is this based on? Animals in the wild have homosexual relations. So did the ancient Greeks.
This has always been a majority rule country? Since when? Have you ever heard of the concepts "tyranny of the majority" or "minority rights" ? There's this thing called the Bill of Rights. It's supposed to apply to everyone, not just the majority.
"If the majority speaks, you should listen not throw little bitch fits."
That is quote possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard or read. Bravo sir for bringing human intelligence to a whole new low.
Hey Thursty, There are alot of confused people and I'm sure plenty would have pity for your cause. The gay side of our society are very sensitive people and need to be watched after. That way bigoted homophobic bullies like me can't beat you down and steal your lunch money.
I want to make a retraction of my statement refering to your size, I was wrong, you're an angry big man.
Animals and sexual relations are kind of tough to compare to humans but I do agree they can get excited and forget themselves. When you get excited do you forget yourself and dry hump other peoples legs? That is really wierd! Now as far as the Greeks are concerned their gender issues were directly related to the gay helmets they wore and they were very fond of their spears.
Well, the way I see it why should the minority have rights when the majority are tyrants. If the minority have rights then the majority suck as tyrants so Bill can take his rights and go home!
Look I don't appreciate you awarding me the honor of owning the dumbest thing ever said without some kind of trophy. Its taken a lifetime of sorting to find just the right thing to say that would earn that kind of recognition. So don't get me all worked up and BAM nothing! Once I'm that excited I could dry hump somebodies leg!
How you and moombaby doing?Peace
Sneakorocksolid - First of all I never said I hated Christians. I love my family and they are all christians, I love my friends and most of them are christians. I was not smoking anything but I am married to a man who never takes sides just drowns in facts. He hates hype, B.S. dishonesty or fantasy. He comes from a very scientific family. He is both literally, a genius and an intellectual. If I tried to argue with him about the bible being real and Christians and Jesus and all that crap I would lose as he knows his facts. His intelligence and beliefs are based solely and completely in reality, not wishful thinking. Both you and James are products of your thoroughly brainwashed and irrational upbringing. Most people are. They are conditioned from birth to believe whatever crap their parents believed, no matter what!! And you damn well better not question them. Then there are those of us who don't care and question EVERYTHING seeking the truth. Do the research. I did. By the way, I am not gay and I believe completely in their rights. I guess I just don't want to go around hating people or denying them simple basic rights.
Dear, well reseached, Moonchild, I'm a convert to Christianity from a nothing. I always had a strong sense of right and wrong so following the Bibles teachings was an easy sell for me. That said, He is the truth, He is the light and his love for you is based on obeying Heavenly Father. When Jesus walked the earth he tasked with two things to love Heavenly Father and Love each other. He also gave you a choice we call 'Free Agency'. You choose to accept his teachings or you choose not to it will always be your decision.
I've always been for gay rights, just not for ruining the institution of marriage by adding a kinky twist. If they can moderate they're position and keep from offending us they could count on moderate support. As with anything you have to give something to get something thats what a compromise is all about.
Finally I don't hate anyone I feel bad for the people who feel they have to be sexually disfuctional. But hey, I'll tell you what I'll hug any gay person bring'm on! Hell I'll hug your husband!
Sounds like you made a good catch, go girl! Peace.
This article is 100% bias and screams "ignorant conservative" at anyone who reads it.
you know an article is bullshit when ann coulter is the one being advertised across the top.
Dearest cls1321(what?), If none of this article rings true to you, you must be a commie! And a worldly one at that! Lets see you love gay rights, you love welfare, you love abortion, you love illegal aliens, you love pot, you love one world government, you love inclusivness, you love political correctness, you love enviromental nazis, you love the whales, you love grazing, you love tests without scores, you love America getting a blackeye, and you love Nancy Pelosi! YEAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Now the fun part you hate our country, you hate our miltary, you hate corporations, you hate suvs, you hate fishermen, you hate hunters, you hate compitition, you hate lumberjacks, you hate Christians, you hate Fox News, you hate Sean Hanity, you hate border patrol, you hate shaving your legs, you hate suits, you hate buisness, you hate plucking the hair between your eyebrows and I'm sure you hate me.
You made one mistake we won't allow ignorant people to be conservative your the supporters of the mixed nuts.Peace.
Moonchild60— Your words:
"My only problem with Christianity at this moment and I mean like this very second, is that they want to control the country and that is frightening. Furthermore, I don't understand their need to push their ideals and desires on the rest of the world."
It appears to me that Christians are playing defense. I know, it is described by its enemies as on the offensive, but the history of our nation makes it clear Christians are seeking to conserve and preserve our real heritage as a country.
All religions think they are the right religion. That is certainly not unique to Christians.
"Any knowledgeable Theologian will tell you that Christianity is based on Pagan rituals and beliefs"
No. Admittedly, many things like Christmas trees and Easter bunnies have pagan origins, but not Christianity.
"During the Roman rule clearly there was no Christianity yet. Jesus was still about and Christianity did not come into being until long after he was gone, aabout the 300's A.D"
Say what???!!!! This is not true. Who do you think the Romans fed to the lions? Who did Nero blame (falsely) for burning down Rome in 66 AD?! Christians. Man oh man. No wonder. I'll do another Hub just for you about the Christian Church from 33 AD to 300 because you can believe what you want but you may as well have said the sun rises in the west.
Jews were only crucified if proven in court to be guilty of murder or treason.
sneakorocksolid— I appreciate your awesome display of your knowledge of the truth. Thank you!
Mindfield— Please do not deify me. I am just a person, like you. :D
thurstjm— You are correct. The Federal Congress cannot enact a national religion. But the States can enact a State religion—and did.
The government never said anybody had to pray. The Supreme Court in 1962 OUTLAWED prayer. An entirely different thing. An opposite thing.
Homosexuals have the exact same rights as anybody else—they are free to marry anybody of the opposite sex not closely related to them provided they are not already married.
Homosexuality has been recognized as unhealthy and immoral all over the planet for thousands of years—not just by Christians. How do you think Muslims view it? Off with your head! That's how they view it.
Government has a vested interest in a healthy, reproducing, stable society. There is no institution ever as healthy, stable and reproducing as traditional marriage.
sneakorocksolid— As always, you cut to the heart of the matter with a piercing eye. Thank you very much.
thurstjm— Well, it should be obvious to you, that if homosexuality were normal and natural the human race would be extinct in 3 generations. And more than 1 or 2 % would claim to have these inclinations. Remember, 10% of all people are criminals. Should they have special rights?
sneakorocksolid— Where would I be without your witty commentary?! I appreciate your sanity.
James very well said hub! After reviewing your comments as well as hub let me post my comment:
To be a liberal is to try to follow your own sect or begin a sect of your own! To be a liberal is to in act a riot against an order!
Most liberals are rebels against a system and will justify their acts with empty words and can find no solid evidence in supporting their claims!
mdawson17
Moonchild60— You assume a lot about me here. I possess a genius IQ myself—not that I am bragging about it, because I did absolutely nothing to earn it. God gave it to me. I am grateful and humbled at this gift. Brainwashed by my upbringing? I had no upbringing. My natural parents did not rear me. I was reared by a hodgepodge of various family members whose beliefs were all over the map. I have 3000 books behind me right now lining the wall of my office. Everything I say, and believe in, is the result of my own investigation. There wasn't anybody to tell me what to believe. That is why I am chosen to witness to the Truth.
sneakorocksolid— Thank you for all of your commentary in this thread. Obviously, the demons are awake now.
Cls1321— Unless you are the village dunce, you know that Hub authors have no input as to what is advertised on their Pages. You, not me, choose to ignore the ultimate Truth of the Universe and your place in it. Go in Peace.
sneakorocksolid— I appreciate you coming in out of the bullpen to save the game for me. You are so right. The ideology of the Left is constructed on Hate. That's why it comes out of their mouths so often. They suffer from psychological "transference" of their hate of the the Light, the true nature of the World, and themselves, unto those who stand for Goodness and Truth.
mdawson17— Wiser words have never been spoken! They are in rebellion. Against their Creator; and against the America that has made this life of plenitude possible for them to comfortably sit around and rebel. Thank you so much for adding this dimension of Truth to the thread.
James, Thank you for this coherent and wonderfully written hub on some issues that need to be discussed! I have never seen the problems of our thinking put to pen quite so well. You truly have a gift of getting to the truth of the matter! I will tell you here, if you leave us, a voice of reality will be silenced forever! Please stay!!! I love your logic! :D
Here are a few more inconsistent beliefs I have found in the average liberal.
1. Police cannot be trusted, therefore we must have the exclusionary rule. Police are the only people that can be trusted with firearms.
2. It is wrong to kill an inmate convicted of capital murder regardless of the crime. It is ok to kill unborn children regardless of the reason.
3. I am a liberal and you must tolerate my speech. You are a conservative and I must regulate your speech (thru speech codes, lawsuits, etc).
4. All humans are created equal. Some humans are special (and deserve special benefits) because of the color of their skin, their genitalia or who they choose to sleep with.
5. Women should be treated as equals and should not be subjugated by men. It is wrong to fight wars against countries that have institutionalized subjugation of women.
6. It is wrong to take military action to protect the standard of living of Americans (Iraq). It is right to take military action to increase the standard of living of foreign citizens (Kosovo).
7. We need to increase taxes on wealthy corporations to support those less fortunate in society. We need to heavily regulate wealthy corporations thereby decreasing their ability to generate profits (which are taxed to help the less fortunate in our society).
8. Media outlets, even those with a marked liberal bias (NYT), should not be regulated. Talk radio should be regulated (fairness doctrine) because it has a marked conservative bias.
9. I am a vegetarian, I only eat grains and vegetables. We need to prevent the farmer from farming his land because he cuts down trees and kills endangered animals and every creature deserves to have a life. (but also, see No. 2 above)
10. Criminals use firearms to break the law. Therefore, we should criminalize possession of firearms. Then, criminals will not longer use firearms because it is against the law.
These are things that make you go Hmmmmmm.
Just keep saying the voices I hear are not real, the voices I hear are real, the voices I hear.. well you get the message.
k@ri— I cannot thank you enough for your wonderful comments. They brought a big smile to my face. I suppose I'll have to do a few more Hubs to fight the utter falsehoods in some of the other comments above. :-)
Alex Homme— Bravo! You have made a great addition to this thread and I thank you! I agree with your list. The circular thinking of Social Liberals amazes me. It is filled with such falsehoods and contradictions that I knew better about in Junior High. Thanks for raising some great examples.
Stick with the Medication— Help I'm a rock!
James, you and I think a lot alike! I want you to keep spreading your intelligent views! They help off set those who aren't so intelligent :) And maybe you and many others like you can help to make a difference in this world, just by writing! It certainly can't hurt!
Wow. Logic fail.
There is a difference between homosexuality being natural, and exclusive homosexuality being normal for every single person in the world. Yes, if everyone on the planet were gay, our race would probably have died out. That doesn't mean that it is unnatural for part of the population.
Yeah, Muslim cultures don't approve of homosexuality. Big whoopty shit. It doesn't matter whether or not something has been accepted in the past. "That's the way it's always been," is not a good argument for any position. Do you have an actual, logical reason as to why homosexual marriage should be outlawed? (Remember that religious dogma doesn't count)
The same rights as everyone? Because they have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. Yeah, they do. That universal right gives straight people the right to get married. By adding that qualifier (of the opposite gender), you are restricting that right to straight people. That does not give people equal rights. That's like saying everyone has the right to vote, as long as they're white.
States can not have a state religion. It is unconstitutional for a state to endorse any religion over another. I know many colonies were founded by certain denominations, but that was before the USA existed. I'm sure throughout history there have been situations in which the majority of a state's population follows a certain religion. That's fine. But that doesn't mean they have a state religion. When a state declares one religion as right, and forces tenants of that religion's beliefs on it's population, that is a state religion. That has yet to happen in our country, thank God.
The Government never outlawed prayer. They outlawed mandatory school prayer. Again, there is a difference between these two things. If you want to pray at school, no one will stop you. In fact, every day at school we had a minute of silence every morning so those who wanted to pray had the opportunity to do so.
Kebennett1— It would be satisfying to make a small difference before I go home to be with Jesus. There is a whopping amount of misinformation and misunderstanding in America. It is staggering. Kids weren't this dumb when I was in high school. The dumbing down in our public schools is amazing, sad and damaging to the future of our nation.
I appreciate your voice of reason. Thank you for reading my works today and leaving your insights.
thurstjm— Sure it does. We have reproductive organs. Lungs, livers, pancreases, and sex organs all have a purpose. What do you suppose our reproductive organs are naturally for? Do you know what an anus is for? The elimination of feces. Anybody who wants to make love to a shit hole is sick. They need psychiatric help. Sorry.
Yes, I do. Because all of us should give a damn what kind of society we live in and that includes what behaviors we sanction. Any behavior that shortens ones life span by 30 years (gay men) should be discouraged.
It is not remotely the same as skin color. You come out the womb with your skin. Who you have sex with as a adult is a behavior. Skin—behavior. No link (one hopes—unless you are saying . . .)
You don't know what you are talking about. Show me where in the Constitution it says the State of Massachusetts cannot have a State religion. Have you never seen the Constitution? You can read it right now on line. Give me the clause. You are wrong again. I am not talking about colonies. 7 states had state religions long after we became the USA. It did happen. You have no knowledge son. Please crack open a couple books besides the Communist Manifesto.
Virtually everything you write is wrong. I thought anybody could hit on a speck on truth by accident. Prayer was never mandatory. Prayer in public schools went on for 200 years until it was outlawed. But there was always an out for conscientious objectors.
I wrote a Hub just for you. Put this in your pipe and smoke it.
Did you really just say that being gay will lower your life span by thirty years? Because every gay person has AIDS, right? Straight people never get AIDS either.
Being gay is not a choice. The only choice is whether or not they should admit who they are and face being ridiculed by people like you, or live their lives pretending to be something they are not.
Why would anyone choose to be gay and make their lives that much more difficult?
About the constitution...It's the first amendment, right at the front. We talked about that.
"Homosexuality has been recognized as unhealthy and immoral all over the planet for thousands of years—not just by Christians. How do you think Muslims view it? Off with your head! That's how they view it."
so just because the general Islam faith is against gays...that means it is right ?
thurstjm— It is not what I "think." It is true. Google gay life expentancy and it says 46. All men 72.
It is not in the front. You are misrepresenting the Truth again. In the front. It says CONGRESS not make a national religion NOR interfere with the free exercise of religion by any people, state or school board, or town. You don't know what CONGRESS is, do you? It is the Federal Senate and House of Representatives. State governments are not CONGRESS.
Any sex act is a choice unless you are raped.
Cls1321— I didn't say that. The commenter said only Christians were against it and that is patently false. All three of the major religions on earth are against it.
Alex H. - Everything you wrote about liberals was absolute bull**it. But you see, that is what most of you ignorant "I only speak the truth these are facts" Republicans WANT to believe. No one can actually have a conversation with you about it because you are so closed minded and already have decided that whatever you believe is the truth. Period. James, no self respecting genius I know would ever believe most of the crap you do, so I am sorry I will never accept that.
Christianity itself began in the early 30's James, it was not yet accepted in Rome at that time and there were certainly no Roman Catholics yet. The Romans were Pagans and persecuted Christians. You wish it was just Christmas trees and Easter Bunny's James but I am sorry, it is ALOT more than that. In any case Here is a quote:
"The Catholic Church traces its foundation to Jesus and the twelve Apostles.[38] It sees the bishops of the Church as the successors of the apostles and the pope (the bishop of Rome), in particular, as the successor of Peter, the leader of the apostles.[22][39] Catholics cite Jesus' words, in the Gospel according to Matthew, to support this view: "... you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, .... I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."[16][28][40] According to Catholic belief, this promised Church, the Catholic Church, was brought fully into the world when the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles in the event known as Pentecost.[39]...
Many scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and that the historical record confirms that the See of Rome in particular was considered a Christian doctrinal authority from its beginning."
Keep believing in Jesus and that he will let you and your abject hatred get into heaven because your so righteous. Yes James, jews were killed for "treason" which the Romans considered to be speaking out about their religion which they saw as against the Kingdom of Rome and was therefore considered treason.
Here is yet another quote to prove my point that ROME was not yet CHRISTIAN itself until the 300's... "The early church which was called Christian or Catholic was persecuted by the Roman Emperors. Christians were crucified, burnt alive and given to wild beasts to be eaten alive. Then there was a sudden change as Constantine the Roman emperor (A.D 313) granted liberty to all Christians as before Christians were persecuted and killed but now Constantine gave religious freedom to the people. He exempted Christian ministers from taxes and encourage to build churches. He moved his capitol to Byzantium and he called Constantinople, “New Rome.” Of the Empire.
Then Emperor Theodosius (A.D 378-398) made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and made church membership compulsory".
These are not my OPINIONS...oh wait, just one more, I love this one...
"Roman Catholicism was formed in the 4th century A.D. Peter was not a Pope at all. The first pope was Siricius. He was the first one to use the term "POPE." While it can be said that the visible church of God had become so apostate that Roman Catholicism was started about 270 A.D., it actually was not until 384 A.D. when Siricius (384-399) became the first Roman Bishop to call himself "Pontifex Maximus" and a new term, "POPE" (papa). Satan was a busy fellow. He could not kill the church of God off by persecution, so he joined the visible religious church.
Now pagan Rome became the so-called "holy" city. The pope had the religious powers of Caesar and claimed to rule the "church."
By the way out of my gay friends, two are over 60 and 1 is 56...my parents friends who are also gay are in their mid 70's...genius my ass...
Wow. Your idiocy never ceases to amaze me.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.3/ross.ht When I searched gay life expectancy, that is one of the articles I found. It basically explains the errors in the calculations used in the study that determined gay people die earlier than straight people. 26 years is a huge difference. How can you believe the difference is THAT huge? Why would a gay person be more likely to die young than someone who isn't gay? How does that even start to make sense? If the reason is AIDS, the article I linked to clearly explains why that is bullshit. To get the number that study claims, even if half of all gay men died from AIDS at 40, all of the ones that dont have AIDS would have to die, on average, at 46.
Having gay sex is a choice. Good job at using a fact in your argument. Please remember though, as I've told you many times, that sometimes two things that are similar are not the same thing. We give them different words to show these differences. See, being gay means feeling sexually attracted to the same sex. It is the desire that makes you gay. We do not choose our desires, rather we choose how we will act on them. Being gay and having sex = not the same.
Yes, I know what congress is. Thanks again for insulting my intelligence by the way. It's true that congress is separate from state government. It's also true that the supreme court ruled that the first amendment applies to state governments as well as congress.
Oh yeah, my bad on the vocab fail earlier. I actually realize that kids were not held down and forced to pray. I probably could have used a better word than mandatory. However, it was still a case of a certain religion being part of a child's life every day, regardless of the beliefs of the child and his/her parents. My point remains valid though, that they didn't stop anybody from praying who wanted to. They just banned pushing prayer on kids. Religion is the opiate of the masses after all. Thanks for ignoring my point and latching onto that.
Moonchild60— Abject hatred?! Of whom? I don't hate anybody in this world.
I am impressed with the history lesson. This totally contradicts your earlier assertions that Christianity was somehow "invented" out of thin air in the 4th Century. If you meant "Roman Catholicism" you should have said so.
I certainly have zero ill feelings toward you. In fact, I like you. You are mistaken that no geniuses believe in Jesus, of course. See Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project and Sir Isaac Newton and on ad infinitum. That thought of yours is absolutely crazy. If I were you, I would reflect on WHO planted that thought in your mind that one has to be an idiot to be a Believer. That's nuts. Try www.ttf.org and look at their board and tell me how unintellectual that group is. Absurd.
thustjm— Now that you have quoted Marx I don't feel there is much more to say to you. But I will after I publish this Hub I am working on. Idiocy, huh? You got some pretty big britches there, son. It may be a good thing you have no idea who you are talking to with your nasty mouth.
"Anybody who wants to make love to a shit hole is sick." Did Jesus say this, James?
Mindfield— Jesus didn't have to. Any one caught in this act during the lifetime of Jesus would have been killed on the spot. And as a Jew, Jesus knew that full well. If Jesus had wanted to contradict this punishment he certainly would have as He was not bashful about contravening the reigning authorities. His silence on this topic speaks volumes, though some try to twist it into His tacit approval. Hardly.
I do not agree with punishing those who practice this behavior today. But I also cannot approve and our society shouldn't either—if it hopes to last long.
Someone really should write a hub pointing out the very profound differences between left wingers and liberals.
The mischief-making of so many right wing commentators who want to prey on their readers lingering fears of communism has clouded political debate in the US to the point that it is often meaningless.
Unfortunately, this hub falls into the mischief making format.
Will Apse— Thank you for your comments. No mischief intended, though I do like that word. My point exactly was to point out the difference between "classical liberals" and "social liberals" or "progressives."
Dear Thursty and Moonchild, Look I honestly believe if you would ask James nicely he would help with your arguement. That way you would have a logical arguement with some facts mixed in. Now I know facts give you the hives Thursty but you should make a sacrifice for the truth or it won't mean thing! So break out your favorite lotion and apply it QID.
Moonchild, Moonchild, Moonchild! You know Thursty? I think hes gay and I think hes real serious about the gay lifestyle thing. If you don't prepare for the worst and it happens you could end up a liberal democrat! So before you hit rock bottom and start digging, step back, take a deep breath. THEN RUN! Run far and run fast to the safest place you know and it may pass, or not. Peace.
sneakorocksolid— Rock Solid commentary, as always. The lack of education of "thurstjm" is appalling—just what I'd expect from a product of our public school system. Moonbeam made a bit of a comeback with some pretty accurate history. Thanks for chiming in.
James. Well done! You hit the nail on the head with this one and you hit it very hard at that! haha, it is scary to me to think about all the liberals who have infiltrated our government and changed it in so many ways that contradict what it was founded on.
Bravo and well done
internpete— Why, thank you very much for your laudatory comments. This Hub has had an incredible amount of traffic. I appreciate you reading and leaving your words.
Thurstjm— Since your Columbia guy starts off with "Damn Lies" I might suggest there is something more than Journalism in his writing. I just pulled up a study done by Oxford, you may have heard of that college, that says 50% of gay men will never see their 65th birthday. An Insurance group estimates they live 21 years less. I subscribe to the New Yorker and have seen many liberal writers lamenting all their gay friends who tragically died so young.
Being attracted to people of the same sex might well be innate desire in some people. So what? Some people desire their neighbor's wife; or desire to screw every girl in town; or desire child pornography; or desire pedastry; or be kleptomaniacs; or desire to set fires; or be sociopaths. Just because people desire something doesn't make it right, good for them or good for society. In fact curbing desire is part of an orderly society. Or, we get back to moral anarchy—anything goes.
What Supreme Court case are you referring to regarding State's rights? Not the 10th Amendment, that's for sure.
Amen, preach it brother Watkins! :)
jaynap01— Don't forget the collection plate on your way out! :D
Thanks for the exhortation.
I remember hearing Ian McKellan (he played Gandalf in Lord of the Rings and Magneto in Xmen) talking on a breakfast radio program.
He was lobbying for the age of consent for homosexual intercourse to be reduced to 16- there was a bill in the UK Parliament at the time. He told the interviewer, 'the important thing is not think of anal sex, think of young love.'
I was eating a bacon sandwich at the time and really didn't
want to think about either.
Anyway, when it comes to other peoples sexuality it is best not think about it. It really is their business and if they keep it their business just forget about it.
Don't Think— I agree that it is their business until it becomes society's business, such as age consent laws, sexual acts in public, rape, etc.
Thanks for your comments and I appreciate the visit.
I'm not sure how I missed reading this Hub until now. I've read all the comments, and still continue to be surprised by the thinking of those who call themselves liberals. I started writing a comment on my opinions, and thought better of it. All I will say, is that I am fortunate that from an early age it has been instilled in me, that freedom does not mean you can do anything, anytime, I wrote about it, and hold to my belief that someday I will have to answer to a higher power. Thank you, James, great as usual.
jiberish— You are so right. To be a free people we have to be a responsible people. Or we will lose the freedom. Thank you very much for your wise words. :D
James,
Great Hub. I totally agree with your view on liberals and their belief on moral relativism. There are so many examples of this in their statements and actions the assertion is undebateable.
I don't consider center left persons as liberals. There are many valid reasons for a person to consider situations as best being served by a center left point of view.
I do believe as one ages and matures they will gravitate to conservativism, unless one has incurred some brain damage by excessive use of illicit drugs or alcohol. If one examines the history of our country, I defy that person to give one good example of a big liberal program that has truly achieved the intended goal.
Social Security and Medicare-Current unfunded liabilities of $60 trillion.
Deficit spending- Current National Debt about $12 trillion
These two programs alone amount to a debt on each and every citizen at this moment of $230,000.
Was this intended? Is it an unintended consequence? When liberals enact their programs they don't dare look to the future. The past is clear proof of that statement.
Tom Whitworth— Thank you for the visitation and your fine commentary. Social Liberals actually believe each person makes up their own Truth. It is a good thing they don't try that scheme with the "truths" of say . . . physics. You are so right that these "programs" are huge failures. But the left was in denial about Papa Joe Stalin for 50 years, too. They have got us in a mess. But with clear thinkers like you, I believe we can change the future of our society for the better.
Thank you very much for your astute remarks.
The recent liberal proliferation of obfuscation, misinformation, pontifacations have causes much consternation and irritation within the population. They must temper their comments of they will find themselves at the brink of political elimination if not oblivion.
Tom Whitworth— I do think the Liberals are overreaching. And their comments about those who object to their prescriptions are nasty and as always—elitist. The pendulum is swinging. Thanks for the visit and the comments.
I don't buy the idea that Moral Relativism is the same as, or in line with, Transcendental Relativism. I would assume, and hope, there is a difference, and that one doesn't have to bleed all over the other.
"Liberals believe girls as young as 12 have a right to abortion without their parent's approval—or even notification that their child is pregnant." To this, I would only like to mention that reproductive health is a very personal issue, even to a girl of 12. Humans do not biologically follow the laws and mores of any society, and a female's parts are her own, not her parents, at any age. Makes it a particularly tricky piece, I think.
sbeakr— It may be tricky. But by law one cannot give an aspirin to a 12 year old. Here is revealed the power of the pro-death camp. The family is the ultimate human authority on Earth—not the government—in a free society that is. Or shall I say, philosophically, it ought to be.
Your first paragraph is interesting . . . I will concede the former is more troubling and pertinent socially. And
. . . They do not necessarily bleed over, no. Good point.
Thank you for your insights.
On a scale of 1 to 10, I have to give it a 10+++. Thanks for taking the time to put this hub together and post it for all to benefit.
Larry Ivey— Why, thank you! I am humbled by your laudations. You are most assuredly welcome.
I saw this and I thought of you. Enjoy!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZpewGq8VkI
spiderpam— Thank you for providing that wonderful link. I enjoyed it very much and must say I agree with its sentiments.
puppascott says:
5 months ago
I have always believed that liberalism boils down to the complete lack of personal responsibility and perpetual vitimization. How much easier, if less fulfilling, life would be with no consequences and endless blame.
It's not my fault that I blame you for another wonderful posting.