Anyone else becoming terrified of Liberals.

KingBrian2

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

jooksavage

KingBrian2 wrote: »

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

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

ancapailldorcha

KingBrian2 wrote: »

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

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

KingBrian2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

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

listermint

KingBrian2 wrote: »

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

No. No it wasn't.

jooksavage

KingBrian2 wrote: »

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

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

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

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

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

Tony EH

KingBrian2 wrote: »

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

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

They are not the same thing.

Professor Moriarty

KingBrian2 wrote:

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

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

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

Suryavarman

Middle Man wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Pre-viable foetuses aren't people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

KingBrian2 wrote: »

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

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

Tony EH wrote: »

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

They are not the same thing.

Neoliberalism is just liberalism mixed with good economic policies.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

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

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

AnGaelach

alastair wrote: »

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

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

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

alastair

AnGaelach wrote: »

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

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

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

AnGaelach

alastair wrote: »

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

Why are you telling lies?

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

ancapailldorcha

Brian? wrote: »

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

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

Phoebas

AnGaelach wrote: »

Why are you telling lies?

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

AnGaelach

Phoebas wrote: »

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

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

Phoebas

AnGaelach wrote: »

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

True.
In this case, an American.

ancapailldorcha

AnGaelach wrote: »

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

Phoebas wrote: »

True.
In this case, an American.

Back on topic, please.

me_right_one

Suryavarman wrote: »

Pre-viable foetuses aren't people.

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

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



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

Suryavarman

me_right_one wrote: »

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

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



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

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

me_right_one

Suryavarman wrote: »

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

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

professore

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Suryavarman

me_right_one wrote: »

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

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

WinnyThePoo

professore wrote: »

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

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

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

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

323

Brian? wrote: »

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

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

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

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

FA Hayek

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

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

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

oscarBravo

FA Hayek wrote: »

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

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

FA Hayek

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

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

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

Note: never addresses the actual points made.

oscarBravo

FA Hayek wrote: »

Note: never addresses the actual points made.

You made actual points?

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

me_right_one

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Yup. Except the polar opposite of that is happening. The complete and utter opposite. And normal people are sick of it. That is why 63 million people from the free-est, most democratic country on the planet, just handed you liberals your arses on a plate.

But dont mind me explaining why you failed, while you keep whinging about how you cant understand why you failed. Lol. Keep it up, keep ignoring what normal people think. Keep believing you're in the majority, and that you're right. Because as long as you do, normal people will be able to spot you and keep their distance.

I just love watching liberals squirm!

oscarBravo

me_right_one wrote: »

Yup. Except the polar opposite of that is happening. The complete and utter opposite. And normal people are sick of it.

"Normal people" are sick of women having bodily autonomy, of gay people having civil rights, of Muslims having freedom of religion?

That's a very narrow (read: straight white male) definition of "normal people" you've got going there.

I just love watching liberals squirm!

I quite enjoy watching narrow minds outing themselves, myself.

Professor Moriarty

me_right_one wrote: »

Yup. Except the polar opposite of that is happening. The complete and utter opposite. And normal people are sick of it. That is why 63 million people from the free-est, most democratic country on the planet, just handed you liberals your arses on a plate.

But dont mind me explaining why you failed, while you keep whinging about how you cant understand why you failed. Lol. Keep it up, keep ignoring what normal people think. Keep believing you're in the majority, and that you're right. Because as long as you do, normal people will be able to spot you and keep their distance.

I just love watching liberals squirm!

Most democratic? The person with the fewest votes was elected POTUS. Three million fewer in fact. Another (I was going to say alternative but, you know...) fact is that he got just 26% of the eligible vote.

Gbear

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Normal people" are sick of women having bodily autonomy, of gay people having civil rights, of Muslims having freedom of religion?

That's a very narrow (read: straight white male) definition of "normal people" you've got going there. I quite enjoy watching narrow minds outing themselves, myself.

Something liberals have to bin completely is the bleating about straight white males all the time.

It's even more embarassing hearing it in an Irish context when Ireland is so demographically homogeneous.

It's another clear example of "liberals" not understanding what the word means.
Why do we look so unfavourably on racism, sexism and other illogical discriminatory groupings?

What a lot of people on the left seem to think is that the problem is that their "team" were being disadvantaged and seem to miss the intrinsic issue of grouping people in that way.

You can quibble over the magnitude of who's the bigger asshole but qualititively racialism and other forms of illogical and arbitrary grouping of people on the left and the right are the same thing and further proof that liberal is the wrong word to describe left wing authoritarians.

oscarBravo

Gbear wrote: »

Why do we look so unfavourably on racism, sexism...

...seriously? We're at the point of arguing that racism and sexism are OK?

Gbear

oscarBravo wrote: »

...seriously? We're at the point of arguing that racism and sexism are OK?

Rhetorical device.

I answered the question with the next sentence.

Brian?

Gbear wrote: »

Rhetorical device.

I answered the question with the next sentence.

Actually, you didn't. We look unfavourably on racism and sexism because it's wrong to discriminate against people based on their race or sex.

AnGaelach

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Normal people" are sick of women having bodily autonomy, of gay people having civil rights, of Muslims having freedom of religion?

That's a very narrow (read: straight white male) definition of "normal people" you've got going there. I quite enjoy watching narrow minds outing themselves, myself.

It's straight white males that are supporting bodily autonomy, and who voted for gay marriage, and who implemented the freedom of religion in Western liberal democracies everywhere.

Do you really just love buzzwords so much you can't help but throw them in when they're not at all relevant to the discussion?

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Most democratic? The person with the fewest votes was elected POTUS.

Because those were the rules both parties agreed to play, or do you think majoritarian authoritarianism is more important than the democratic bargain?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Widdershins

wes wrote: »

A Trump supporting right winger, walked into a mosque and murdered 6 people a few days ago. Then, the Trump admin blamed that attack on Muslims, and then a few days later announced that he admin will be ignoring far right terror.

I know who I am afraid of.

Yes it was horrible, that goes without saying, but if the other way around (if Muslims had attacked non Muslims) people would be quoting the statistics for death by car crashes. It makes no sense to be afraid either way. Fear is a barrier.

Widdershins

Yes I'm..unhappy with the direction Feminism is going. It disappoints me when friends parrot catchphrases like '' Dismantle The Patriarchy'' and get irritable or change the subject because they really have not thought critically about the claims they are perpetuating. I really cannot bring myself to call the more prominent of these people Liberal as they are the antithesis of Liberal. Not very feminist either, more like imposters.

Suryavarman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're a member of a private forum for discussing libertarianism on this site. It was set up to give libertarians a safe space to discuss libertarianism on this site.

Hypocritical much?

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree. But a genuinely liberal society can't turn a blind eye to bigotry.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because those were the rules both parties agreed to play, or do you think majoritarian authoritarianism is more important than the democratic bargain?

Actually no. Both sides didn't agree to play by the rules. Trumps stated clearly and often that he wouldn't accept the result if he lost. Rather authoritarian, wouldn't you say?

Brian?

Suryavarman wrote: »

You're a member of a private forum for discussing libertarianism on this site. It was set up to give libertarians a safe space to discuss libertarianism on this site.

Hypocritical much?

Does that still exist? I want in. I'm a libertarian too.

AnGaelach

Brian? wrote: »

I agree. But a genuinely liberal society can't turn a blind eye to bigotry.

I'd argue that the diehard and shrill nature of those on the far left are the ones contributing to the rise in bigotry. They're the ones who started putting people into subsections and telling them they're oppressed, the ones who effectively started race-competition in the US.

I'm not saying the right is completely faultless, they're probably delighted that it's on the cards again - but nobody in the centre would have taken them seriously, had it not been for those trying to start ethnic competition. Every time I hear the term "white privilege" used in the context of Ireland, I get a little more fed up and a little more convinced we're going to head straight down the same path as Britain, America, and the Continental Europeans.

MightyMandarin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're right, it's not liberalism because it has nothing to do with liberals at all.

What has the 'US college campus' example got to do with modern liberalism? You've taken perceived 'social segregation' and the fact that college environments tend to be quite liberal, and concluded that this 'segregation' is all down to liberalism, which just isn't true.

'Social segregation' as you call it, exists in various environments and along both 'political sides'. You don't think the GOP strategists define its supporters along groups such as 'the evangelicals' or 'the libertarians', the same way things such as 'the black caucus' exist on the Democrat's side.

It has nothing to do with liberalism yet you just use it as another example to unfairly bash it.

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Actually no. Both sides didn't agree to play by the rules. Trumps stated clearly and often that he wouldn't accept the result if he lost. Rather authoritarian, wouldn't you say?

Trump was laying the groundwork for launching his own media/"news" station. I, personally, find it unlikely he'd actually try to dispute the outcome of the election.

listermint

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'd argue that the diehard and shrill nature of those on the far left are the ones contributing to the rise in bigotry. They're the ones who started putting people into subsections and telling them they're oppressed, the ones who effectively started race-competition in the US.

I'm not saying the right is completely faultless, they're probably delighted that it's on the cards again - but nobody in the centre would have taken them seriously, had it not been for those trying to start ethnic competition. Every time I hear the term "white privilege" used in the context of Ireland, I get a little more fed up and a little more convinced we're going to head straight down the same path as Britain, America, and the Continental Europeans.

Just to put the brakes on this here .


Who uses the term white privilege in an Irish context and please don't say Facebook.

Because I've never ever ever heard anyone say those words in this country.