What's the point of participating in a discussion/debate forum if you're going to place everyone who outsmarts you on Ignore?
I'll have a discussion with you, I want to know how you can brand all Liberals as the same. Liberalism is so diverse that it is an incredible over simplification. It would be like saying that all Republicans are exactly the same. Pretty much all of America's major political figures are republican to some extent, this does not mean they are all the same.
Besides, from your posts it seems you would be supportive of classical liberalism which is all about personal economic freedom. That sounds like something you'd like
Location: The greatest country man has ever known.
Rep Power: 0
Other
Right Winger
Slogan/motto:
Reputation:
May 4th, 2012, 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by woopah
Besides, from your posts it seems you would be supportive of classical liberalism which is all about personal economic freedom. That sounds like something you'd like
Again, 'today's liberals' are not all the same. People on this board could be market liberals whose ideology revolves around a free market economy with personal liberties and human rights.
They're still liberals, even if they disagree with what other liberals think
Slogan/motto:
Hard work never hurt anybody - but why take the chance !!!
Reputation:
May 5th, 2012, 06:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyBob
Some of the Libs on this board are ignorant of the fact that liberalism has at its core racism, eugenics and wholesale murder just as Hitler's Nazi's did and any other murderous totalitarian regime.
Its hard to argue with a deep thinker like "BillyBob" - I'm just glad he's on the other side
Location: The greatest country man has ever known.
Rep Power: 0
Other
Right Winger
Slogan/motto:
Reputation:
May 5th, 2012, 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by woopah
Again, 'today's liberals' are not all the same. People on this board could be market liberals whose ideology revolves around a free market economy with personal liberties and human rights.
No, that would make you a conservative.
Quote:
They're still liberals, even if they disagree with what other liberals think
Then it seems that you are the one who is confused, the two are not mutually exclusive. Margret Thatcher was clearly a Conservative, but she was also a classical Liberal.
Again, Liberalism has many different forms. You can be a liberal and not be in favour of fascism or totalitarianism
why is it not possible for someone in the US to have similar beliefs to Margret Thatcher?
Quote:
Maybe not openly. Libs rarely admit what they really are.
then how do you know what they really are? I'd say i'm a liberal because I support human rights and personal freedom. How does supporting human rights and personal freedoms makes me a totalitarian?
Location: The greatest country man has ever known.
Rep Power: 0
Other
Right Winger
Slogan/motto:
Reputation:
May 5th, 2012, 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by woopah
then how do you know what they really are? I'd say i'm a liberal because I support human rights and personal freedom. How does supporting human rights and personal freedoms makes me a totalitarian?
If you vote for the democrat party you don't support personal freedoms or human rights.
Some of the Libs on this board are ignorant of the fact that liberalism has at its core racism, eugenics and wholesale murder just as Hitler's Nazi's did and any other murderous totalitarian regime.
Time educate them.
‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
by Michelle Malkin
Copyright 2012
If you aren’t creeped out by the No Birth Control Left Behind rhetoric of the White House and Planned Parenthood, you aren’t listening closely enough. The anesthetic of progressive benevolence always dulls the senses. Wake up.
When a bunch of wealthy white women and elite Washington bureaucrats defend the trampling of religious liberties in the name of “increased access” to “reproductive services” for “poor” women, the ghost of Margaret Sanger is cackling.
As she wrote in her autobiography, Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1916 “to stop the multiplication of the unfit.” This, she boasted, would be “the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” While she oversaw the mass murder of black babies, Sanger cynically recruited minority activists to front her death racket. She conspired with eugenics financier and businessman Clarence Gamble to “hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities” to sell their genocidal policies as community health and welfare services.
Outright murder wouldn’t sell. But wrapping it under the egalitarian cloak of “women’s health” — and adorning it with the moral authority of black churches — would. Sanger and Gamble called their deadly campaign “The Negro Project.”
In other writings, historian Mike Perry found, Sanger attacked programs that provided “medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers” because they “facilitate the function of maternity” when “the absolute necessity is to discourage it.” In an essay included in her writing collection held by the Library of Congress, Sanger urged her abortion clinic colleagues to “breed a race of thoroughbreds.” Nationwide “birth control bureaus” would propagate the proper “science of breeding” to stop impoverished, non-white women from “breeding like weeds.”
Speaking with CBS veteran journalist Mike Wallace in 1957, long after her racist views had supposedly mellowed, Sanger again revealed her true colors: “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world — that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin — that people can — can commit.”
Sanger also elaborated on her anti-Catholic animus, telling one of Wallace’s reporters that New York Catholics had no right to protest the use of their tax dollars for birth city birth-control programs: “(I)t’s not only wrong, it should be made illegal for any religious group to prohibit dissemination of birth control — even among its own members.” When Wallace pressed her (“In other words, you would like to see the government legislate religious beliefs in a certain sense?”), Sanger laughed nervously and disavowed the remarks.
Fast forward: Five decades and 16 million aborted black babies later, Planned Parenthood’s insidious agenda has migrated from inner-city “birth control bureaus” to public school-based health clinics to the White House — forcibly funded with taxpayer dollars just as Sanger championed.
Several undercover stings by Live Action, pro-life documentarians, have exposed Planned Parenthood staff accepting donations over the years from callers posing as eugenics cheerleaders who wanted to earmark their contributions for the cause of aborting minority babies. “We can definitely designate it for an African-American,” a Tulsa, Okla., Planned Parenthood employee eagerly promised.
What has cheap, easy and unmonitored “choice” for poor women in inner cities wrought? Nightmares like the Philadelphia Horror, where serial baby-killer Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his abortion clinic death squad oversaw the systematic execution of hundreds of healthy, living, breathing, squirming, viable black and Hispanic babies over 4 decades — along with several minority mothers who may have lost their lives in his grimy birth control bureau.
City and state authorities looked the other way while jars of baby parts and reports of botched abortions and infanticides piled up. Beltway Democrats who now bray about their concern for “women’s health” were silent about the Gosnell massacre and countless others like it in America’s ghettos. Why?
The Obama administration is crawling with the modern-day heirs of the eugenics movement, from Planned Parenthood golden girl Kathleen Sebelius at the Department of Health and Human Services to the president’s prestigious science czar John Holdren — an outspoken proponent of forced abortions and mass sterilizations and a self-proclaimed protege of eugenics guru Harrison Brown, whom he credits with inspiring him to become a scientist.
Brown envisioned a government regime in which the “number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous.” He urged readers to “reconcile ourselves to the fact that artificial means must be applied to limit birth rates.” He likened the global population to a “pulsating mass of maggots.”
Listen carefully as this White House dresses its Obamacare abortion mandate in the white lab coat of “reproductive services” for all. The language of “access to birth control” is the duplicitous code of Sanger’s ideological grim reapers.
Yes INDEED!!!
AND that's why that government can never come out from under such power that is over such a mealy-mouth people as the Americans are today. It wasn't that way when you earned your freedom, but now you HAVE LOST IT!! - By the POWER OF GOD.
Paul -- 050512
---Gal. 4:16.
---"Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth"???
If you vote for the democrat party you don't support personal freedoms or human rights.
I never said anything about the Democrat Party, I was talking about Liberals. This is where the confusion seems to be is that it looks like you think that the only type of Liberals are those in the Democrat Party. I'm not in the US and obviously didn't vote Democrat, but i'd still say i'm socially liberal
Location: The greatest country man has ever known.
Rep Power: 0
Other
Right Winger
Slogan/motto:
Reputation:
May 5th, 2012, 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by woopah
I never said anything about the Democrat Party, I was talking about Liberals. This is where the confusion seems to be is that it looks like you think that the only type of Liberals are those in the Democrat Party. I'm not in the US and obviously didn't vote Democrat, but i'd still say i'm socially liberal
Linear Mode
