I find it difficult to believe that you fell off the turnip truck 2 days ago. That is because I didn't. I have spent a lifetime developing my political and philosophical beliefs. I don't need YOU or this forum to introduce me to these things.
One could only hold this belief if one accepts that the next stage of American cultural change is that of a Third World Nation banana republic. Now, I'll grant you this might be true. Conservatives aren't lapping dogs to roll over on command, so get ready for a fight.
I hate to have to break this to you, but it is third world counties that are governed by religious sectarianism. Just look at the middle east and Central and South America for examples.
BINGO! Admin moderators are we through yet?
First: This isn't a part of the cycle of civilizations.
Second: This isn't "liberalization", it's authoritarian socialism.
Third: This isn't natural. It's imposed by authoritarian organizations subverting nations from within. WITNESS: Russia, China, Korea, Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia...and it was interrupted in El Salvador by R. Reagan.
You are the one who now seems to want the Authoritarian powers of the Admin moderators to stifle my individual freedom of thought and expression now. Just as you are the one who advocates Authoritaran Government to regulate the free activities and cultural life of the American people. You should take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror.
I have said NOTHING about socialism. I have only talked about the evolution of American attitudes on culture.
We DO in fact live in one of the most liberal societies in the world. Communism is NOT liberal. It is oppressive. It is the polar opposite of liberal. I think you are confusing the definition of "liberalism" with the quasi-socialist political movement of the left-wing Liberals. There is a world of difference here.
True liberalism, in the definition that I am using is the tendancy of western culture through out the ages to relax its Authoritarian grip of religion and social mores, and continually embrace new freedoms for individuals. This should be patently obvious in the form of the Bill of Rights, property rights, abolition, sufferage, voting rights act, the civil rights movement, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and yes, the progressive acceptance of "alternative lifestyles".
And seeing just how dense you are, I now have to point out that when I use the word "progressive" here and in previous posts, it is in the standard definition of "gradual change in steady incriments over time", not the Progressive movement of 1924.
You aren't part of society. Very much like the communists who spawned your broken logic, you're attempting to lead people into a direction we're quite unwilling to go. We know where this road leads.
Oh, now I'm a COMMUNIST too..?
You have really crossed the line on that one you inbred throwback troglodyte scumbag.
I went from being a mere "RINO" to a Marxist now for supporting Republican Gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger!
Pat Buchanan formed his own party because we've been trying to force out the cancer in ours such as you two. I strongly suggest you join him. Now.
"I have spent a lifetime developing my political and philosophical beliefs. I don't need YOU or this forum to introduce me to these things."
Then how is it that you believe the unwillingness of *conservatives* to yield to RINOs in Califonia has kept the GOP out of power? Unless your lifetime has been a very short one, you'd already know better.
"I hate to have to break this to you, but it is third world counties that are governed by religious sectarianism"
Again, if you've spent a lifetime developing political philosophy, you'd know that *conservatives* aren't pushing for a religious sectarianism. That's a canard worthy of any progressive/communist around.
"You are the one who now seems to want the Authoritarian powers of the Admin moderators to stifle my individual freedom of thought and expression now. Just as you are the one who advocates Authoritaran Government to regulate the free activities and cultural life of the American people. You should take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror."
This forum is for conservatives, you're the opposite of a conservative with maybe 2-3 issues where you're not completely a liberal...maybe not. I'm a libertarian. Saying "God" in a public place isn't an establishment of religion. Now, it's not *my* fault that homosexuality is a mental disorder, it can be treated, it is absolutely wrong to recognize is legally as an acceptible condition. Worse...I haven't advcocated *any* government powers and I have a tag line that's very specific. Exactly what authoritarian schemes do you think I support?
"I have said NOTHING about socialism. I have only talked about the evolution of American attitudes on culture."
The core of that culture is freedom. You *have* spoken about socialism it's the core of the "progressive" attack on culture. It's part and parcel of Arnold's political economics and is reflected in his choice of economic advisor: Warren Buffet. Again...had you spent a significant amount of time thinking about a political philosophy, these things would be evident to you. You are intelligent enough to make this realization.
"True liberalism, in the definition that I am using is the tendancy of western culture through out the ages to relax its Authoritarian grip of religion and social mores, and continually embrace new freedoms for individuals."
Try to refer to is at "classical liberalism" or more accurately in contemporary vernancular "libertarianism". What you've supported, and what we're witnessing in California is unrelated. The authoritarian grip on religion isn't being relaxed, like all communist goals, what is happening is that it's being gradually OUTLAWED. Relaxing grips on social mores does not improve the number of freedoms for individuals, it reduces them. The only possible way to increase individual freedom is to increase individual responsibility. AGAIN...if you have spent a lifetime of any significant length developing political and philosophical belief this simple truism would be self-evident. Individual freedom and responsibility are inseparably intermingled. Neither is on the increase in California, nor will they be under Arnold. He's explicitly stated that he wishes to remove some of the responsibilities of parenthood in a manner consistent with socialism: "The children should have first call on the treasury."
If you feel insulted by being termed a communist, do try to fail to support their incremental plan for the destruction of America through the destruction of her social mores. No nation can survive immorality without falling into chaos or tyranny...it's yet another lesson from history. Your use of the term "progressive" when it comes to society contextually, is EXACTLY toward that goal as implemented by Stalin's Useful Idiots and as articulated by Khruschev.
If you feel insulted, you did it yourself. I only revealed the maggots underneath the thin veneer of the idea you expressed...and it might not be your fault. You didn't know.
