Dilemma of a Liberal

[ftbno1]

What is left wing or right wing?

The term started from the French revolution when in the when in French parliament those who were supporters of old monarchy were sitting in the right side of the parliament and those who wanted change were sitting on Left.

Simply meant those who did not want to change the world order(conservative) and the ones who were open to new ideas(liberal).
If we look at modern history all the improtant changes in the world which were positive like

Abolition of Slavery
End of colonization
Emancipation and equal rights of woman
Abolishment of practices like Sati, child marriage & untouchablity etc
were made by those who could be termed as left wing and in each of these were opposed by those who would be called right wing.

It is amazing how being called left wing or liberal has become an abuse or abomination while being right wing has become batch of honour.
Being liberal simply means that you are open to new ideas even if you agree with them or not.How is it contraversial. A liberal can be simpleton or naive but can not be called immoral or evil.

How can their be hatred in minds of people for a group of another people (liberals) whose only crime is having empathy and open mind?

What is use of mind if you can't change it?

What is use of voice if you cant speak when it is required?

What is use of an eye it is colour(race/religion) blind?

 

[Cover Drive Six]

Actual Liberals ideology is different from Liberals in modern day politics.

Nowadays there is rampant increase in number of pseudo-liberals who hide behind the garb of liberalism with some hidden agenda.

Communists, marxists, urban maoists, urban naxals are left liberals. Prakash Raj, Mahesh Bhatt, Swara Bhaskar, Naseeruddin Shah, Shabana ,Javed, NDTV, Rajdeep, JNU, many theatre personalities etc. are so called Left Liberals.

They are happy when all agrees with them on a certain issue but as soon as someone starts having different opinions they start labeling the other person as communal or nationalist.

 

[Stewie]

Actual Liberals ideology is different from Liberals in modern day politics.

Nowadays there is rampant increase in number of pseudo-liberals who hide behind the garb of liberalism with some hidden agenda.

Communists, marxists, urban maoists, urban naxals are left liberals. Prakash Raj, Mahesh Bhatt, Swara Bhaskar, Naseeruddin Shah, Shabana ,Javed, NDTV, Rajdeep, JNU, many theatre personalities etc. are so called Left Liberals.

They are happy when all agrees with them on a certain issue but as soon as someone starts having different opinions they start labeling the other person as communal or nationalist.

I think these are just labels and you are just slap happy when it comes to them. People in real life are many different shades on the spectrum and nobody is total left or right, we swing back and forth, how it suits us.

So blaming this behavior on the concept of left (or right) is wrong.

 

[ftbno1]

So, As per you what is their real motive?? Wo chahte kyaa hain jo itna bura hai??

 

[sweep_shot]

Modern liberalism has been hijacked by communists and other far-left groups.

 

[Robert]

I favour a two-dimensional political axis: https://www.politicalcompass.org/

On the x-axis you have left and right, running from Marxist planned economy on the left to laissez-faire capitalism on the right.

On the y-axis you have pure authoritarianism at the top (total despotic control), and pure libertarianism at the bottom (anarchy).


Looking at figures from history, Stalin would be extreme authoritarian / extreme left-wing. Hitler would be extreme authoritarian / slightly right-wing. Putin is extreme authoritarian / extreme right wing. xi Xinping would be extreme authoritarian / mildly left wing. Johnson is somewhat liberal (though now moving to authoritarian to remain in power) and very right wing, as was Gladstone.

I come out as slightly left wing and a slightly liberal.

It may need a z-axis: identitarian vs internationalist

 

[ftbno1]

What do you mean by that?? Far left?? What do they want which is so offensive??

 

[Stewie]

What do you mean by that?? Far left?? What do they want which is so offensive??

far left is all about equality for all which can be a bit dangerous at times because it does not leave any incentive for some to go above and beyond for reward as in a full capitalist society (this is just one aspect i find detrimental, I am sure there are pros and cons of it like every other "ism")

 

[ftbno1]

The whole point is no one can identify the problems in left ideology if you dig deep.
What is being volk means?? It means dont be racist insome form or another.

 

[ftbno1]

You are talking about communist ideology. I am talking about liberals.
In terms of economy a mixed economy with tilt towards left is best.
Totally capitalist society will end in scenarops mentioned in Death Race Or Purge.
While (as you said) total communism is pipe dream.
But current capitalism will lead us to a place like French Revolution when poor will lynch the rich.

 

[Stewie]

You are talking about communist ideology. I am talking about liberals.
In terms of economy a mixed economy with tilt towards left is best.
Totally capitalist society will end in scenarops mentioned in Death Race Or Purge.
While (as you said) total communism is pipe dream.
But current capitalism will lead us to a place like French Revolution when poor will lynch the rich.

So my question to you is who decides what is a reasonable "mix" as you said. See leftists or marxists are actually communists, arent they? liberals are what? yes I do agree they are not communists but they still identify with a leftist ideology which has shades of socialism/communism, etc. But who decides what level is acceptable and where to draw the line?

Personally speaking I align myself a lot of liberal beliefs, but I can also identify some of the negative aspects of it, just as I am fully wary of the negative aspects of blind conservatism or right wing ideas.

 

[Technics 1210]

The dilemma of a liberal? Their ideology is baked with hypocrisy.

Liberals champion freedom, but will never accept an opposing opinion and resort to generalisations. (All Brexiteers and Trump supporters are racists for example).

Liberals champion democracy, but can never accept a democratic result not going their way. (Trump, Brexit, Putin).

Liberals champion equality, but non-whites are above whites, and Women are above men, and the life of a European is worth more than a non European.

Liberals champion fairness and balance, but will block/ban opinions which do not conform to their views. (Social media blocking user views).

Liberals champion personal choice but want to ban abortions, religion, but not guns.

Liberals champion personal belief and will promote atheism but riddicule theism.

Liberals champion capitalism because it opposes communism, but then complain about the rich and successful.

Liberals are the champions of division and hypocrisy. Speak with a right winger and you know where you stand with them, speak to a liberal, and the goal posts keep changing.

Liberals champion peace, but support war outside of Europe.

There is a reason why history has a litany of examples of why Liberalism has barely won an election, let alone achieve, a thing spanning centuries in the political Western sphere.

Liberals love supporting the Romans, who were not liberals, but authoritarianism. Love propelling the British Empire, which was not liberal but authoritarianism.

Liberalism has no goal but to destroy humanity.

 

[Stewie]

The dilemma of a liberal? Their ideology is baked with hypocrisy.

Liberals champion freedom, but will never accept an opposing opinion and resort to generalisations. (All Brexiteers and Trump supporters are racists for example).

Liberals champion democracy, but can never accept a democratic result not going their way. (Trump, Brexit, Putin).

Liberals champion equality, but non-whites are above whites, and Women are above men, and the life of a European is worth more than a non European.

Liberals champion fairness and balance, but will block/ban opinions which do not conform to their views. (Social media blocking user views).

Liberals champion personal choice but want to ban abortions, religion, but not guns.

Liberals champion personal belief and will promote atheism but riddicule theism.

Liberals champion capitalism because it opposes communism, but then complain about the rich and successful.

Liberals are the champions of division and hypocrisy. Speak with a right winger and you know where you stand with them, speak to a liberal, and the goal posts keep changing.

Liberals champion peace, but support war outside of Europe.

There is a reason why history has a litany of examples of why Liberalism has barely won an election, let alone achieve, a thing spanning centuries in the political Western sphere.

Liberals love supporting the Romans, who were not liberals, but authoritarianism. Love propelling the British Empire, which was not liberal but authoritarianism.

Liberalism has no goal but to destroy humanity.

these are such generalizations that you can so easily swap a few words and will become an anti conservative post just like that.. with minimal edits.. literally! A POINT TO PONDER!

Look its very easy to become completely lost in "your choice of ism" ... very easy and also to bash the opposing ism. But human beings and societies have complex mechanisms. I am sorry to tell you that you cannot get married to one ism or be staunchly against one ism and think thats the best approach or "the truth" because it never is.

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberalism (or any political ideology) is NEVER about the truth, but about VALUES.

Liberals : We believe in Democracy.

Trump wins

Liberals : Russia influenced election, Trump must be impeached. Trump supporters are racists.

Liberals put the the mock in Demockracy.

 

[Stewie]

Liberalism (or any political ideology) is NEVER about the truth, but about VALUES.

Liberals : We believe in Democracy.

Trump wins

Liberals : Russia influenced election, Trump must be impeached. Trump supporters are racists.

Liberals put the the mock in Demockracy.

So why are you always crying about liberalism and not about conservatism?

 

[Technics 1210]

Exposing the hypocrisy of liberalism isn't crying, it's revealing.

Crying is when a democratic result or opinion doesn't go the liberal way.

As I said, you do not know where you stand with the disease and hypothetical ridden ideology known as liberalism.

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberalism : We believe in freedom of choice.

I will not have the Covid jab.

Liberalism : Traitor! Conspiracy theorist! Xing lover.

 

[Stewie]

Exposing the hypocrisy of liberalism isn't crying, it's revealing.

Crying is when a democratic result or opinion doesn't go the liberal way.

As I said, you do not know where you stand with the disease and hypothetical ridden ideology known as liberalism.

thats the hypocrisy of some liberals and not liberalism in itself. Can you differentiate between the two?

Its just like me saying assuming you are a pakistani and you are a Muslim, that you support extremism.. its a pretty infuriating generalisation that quite a few people make.

When we are the targets of such generlizations we vehemently oppose them but then why do we make them ourselves?

 

[Technics 1210]

thats the hypocrisy of some liberals and not liberalism in itself. Can you differentiate between the two?

Its just like me saying assuming you are a pakistani and you are a Muslim, that you support extremism.. its a pretty infuriating generalisation that quite a few people make.

When we are the targets of such generlizations we vehemently oppose them but then why do we make them ourselves?

You still don't get it.

An extreme right wing racist will be a racist against blacks and browns irrespective of situation or geography, or politics.

A liberal who 'claims' to support peace will support and protect whites in Europe, demand pity and charity of Europeans, but will never extend such humility, altruism, and values towards humans outside of Europe when in war. Not to mention Liberals have a special place for Jews. These same liberals care about the life of Blacks in the West, but never in Africa. Why,?

How many times have you witnessed these flowery hippy loving liberals support Yemenese, Palestians on PP? Yet when there is war in Ukraine, they come out of the wood-works, and we have post after post, thread after thread, defending Ukrainians who are proven Nazis based on Western media reports pre Russian war.

A racist right winger is consistent in their beliefs, whether you agree with their world view or not, but a liberal on the other hand is a hypocrite and changes their story, morning glory.

Liberalism is the real face of fascism

 

[Stewie]

You still don't get it.

An extreme right wing racist will be a racist against blacks and browns irrespective of situation or geography, or politics.

A liberal who 'claims' to support peace will support and protect whites in Europe, demand pity and charity of Europeans, but will never extend such humility, altruism, and values towards humans outside of Europe when in war. Not to mention Liberals have a special place for Jews. These same liberals care about the life of Blacks in the West, but never in Africa. Why,?

How many times have you witnessed these flowery hippy loving liberals support Yemenese, Palestians on PP? Yet when there is war in Ukraine, they come out of the wood-works, and we have post after post, thread after thread, defending Ukrainians who are proven Nazis based on Western media reports pre Russian war.

A racist right winger is consistent in their beliefs, whether you agree with their world view or not, but a liberal on the other hand is a hypocrite and changes their story, morning glory.

Liberalism is the real face of fascism

Not true. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the ideas of conservatism. Conservatism teaches beliefs in conservative values and ideas entrenched in spiritualism. Love thy neighbor! Love mankind, etc.
In case of American conservatives, the idea is to stick to the US constitution and the traditional beliefs of american forefathers, and the idea of truth, justice and freedom for all. The same values that America wants your downtrodden, your poor, etc and willing to accept them.

See conservatives or right wingers is not entrenched in racism or bigotry.. BUT some modern day conservatives are twisting some of the ideology to make it work for their racist base.

They are as much guilty of hypocrisy as left wingers you are complaining about.

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberal s are justifying their hypocrisy and confusion with 3D 360 political axis. It's a load of **.

Example When Brexiteers raised their concerns on unfettered immigration (unfettered look it up), while subscribing to national unity, liberals were quick to label Brexiteers Nazis and racists.

It was the Liberals whom supported a bias immigration policy allowing White Europeans to waltz in but outside of EU the same liberals were happy for immigrants to jump through rings of fire. Yet when the boot is on the other foot, their hypocrisy exposed, Liberals play the z axis card?

Give me a break.

 

[Technics 1210]

Not true. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the ideas of conservatism. Conservatism teaches beliefs in conservative values and ideas entrenched in spiritualism. Love thy neighbor! Love mankind, etc.
In case of American conservatives, the idea is to stick to the US constitution and the traditional beliefs of american forefathers, and the idea of truth, justice and freedom for all. The same values that America wants your downtrodden, your poor, etc and willing to accept them.

See conservatives or right wingers is not entrenched in racism or bigotry.. BUT some modern day conservatives are twisting some of the ideology to make it work for their racist base.

They are as much guilty of hypocrisy as left wingers you are complaining about.

Liberalism in Amreeka is as bad as the plague. Speak to a liberal in the UK and they will tell you the how they oppose Conservatism, and a conservative government (BORIS and the Tories).

See, liberalism is not even consistent across the atlantic.

 

[Stewie]

Liberal s are justifying their hypocrisy and confusion with 3D 360 political axis. It's a load of **.

Example When Brexiteers raised their concerns on unfettered immigration (unfettered look it up), while subscribing to national unity, liberals were quick to label Brexiteers Nazis and racists.

It was the Liberals whom supported a bias immigration policy allowing White Europeans to waltz in but outside of EU the same liberals were happy for immigrants to jump through rings of fire. Yet when the boot is on the other foot, their hypocrisy exposed, Liberals play the z axis card?

Give me a break.

but those are all political agendas and issues.. localized ones too. They dont apply universally. For instance as an American, I really wouldnt have any dog in the fight so why would I bother about it? Similarly, you wouldnt bother about what goes on in American politics either as to the screwups happening on the southern border or the January 6 fiasco, which are both prime examples of the hypocrisy of the left and the right respectively


My point is, we are talking about ideologies here and they all have their pros and cons. one cannot summarily dismiss one in totality. It is just not a healthy approach. Liberals and liberalism in general is why you and I are living in the west. At some point, someone stood up and said, I think we should be more inclusive and allow other people to come to our country for a living, education whatever. Those are all the positives of liberalism as well. If you call a non brown guy your friend and hang out with them over the weekend, its because you are espousing certain liberal values as well. How is that a bad thing?

 

[Stewie]

Liberalism in Amreeka is as bad as the plague. Speak to a liberal in the UK and they will tell you the how they oppose Conservatism, and a conservative government (BORIS and the Tories).

See, liberalism is not even consistent across the atlantic.

once again, and I keep repeating myself you are confusing an ideology (liberalism) with the actions of a group of people (so-called liberals) and somehow deducing their actions are true to what they proclaim to be liberalism.

Its at best conjecture and at worst a fallacy.

 

[Technics 1210]

but those are all political agendas and issues.. localized ones too. They dont apply universally. For instance as an American, I really wouldnt have any dog in the fight so why would I bother about it? Similarly, you wouldnt bother about what goes on in American politics either as to the screwups happening on the southern border or the January 6 fiasco, which are both prime examples of the hypocrisy of the left and the right respectively


My point is, we are talking about ideologies here and they all have their pros and cons. one cannot summarily dismiss one in totality. It is just not a healthy approach. Liberals and liberalism in general is why you and I are living in the west. At some point, someone stood up and said, I think we should be more inclusive and allow other people to come to our country for a living, education whatever. Those are all the positives of liberalism as well. If you call a non brown guy your friend and hang out with them over the weekend, its because you are espousing certain liberal values as well. How is that a bad thing?

A racist right winger will have a consistent view whether in UK, USA, Canada, rest of the world. The same cannot be said of Liberalism - you only have to see your response above.

You either believe in equality or you do not. You either believe in freedom or you do not. You either believe in democracy or you do not. Geography, leaders, and media, must not sway your values.

Where are the empathic cries of justice from Liberals when it comes to Yemenese and Palestians? Why are liberals promoting the notion that the life of a Europeans is above non-europeans, the life of a coloured human is above whites, and the life of a Jew is above all life?

 

[Technics 1210]

once again, and I keep repeating myself you are confusing an ideology (liberalism) with the actions of a group of people (so-called liberals) and somehow deducing their actions are true to what they proclaim to be liberalism.

Its at best conjecture and at worst a fallacy.

I am not the one confused.

A liberal is one who subscribes to the ideology that is liberalism.

Unless you are telling me a racist does not subscribe to a right wing ideology?

 

[Stewie]

A racist right winger will have a consistent view whether in UK, USA, Canada, rest of the world. The same cannot be said of Liberalism - you only have to see your response above.

You either believe in equality or you do not. You either believe in freedom or you do not. You either believe in democracy or you do not. Geography, leaders, and media, must not sway your values.

Where are the empathic cries of justice from Liberals when it comes to Yemenese and Palestians? Why are liberals promoting the notion that the life of a Europeans is above non-europeans, the life of a coloured human is above whites, and the life of a Jew is above all life?

you dont read other peoples posts, do you? lol

 

[Stewie]

I am not the one confused.

A liberal is one who subscribes to the ideology that is liberalism.

Unless you are telling me a racist does not subscribe to a right wing ideology?

Why would I humor you and answer your questions if you have shown all inclinations of not even paying attention to them? I think its important for any exchange of thoughts to be reciprocal. I already addressed most of the points you have raised so far in this exchange but I seem to be circling back to them over and over again. its like pouring water on a duck. Go back and read my last few posts again for answers to the questions you keep repeating over and over again.

 

[Technics 1210]

you dont read other peoples posts, do you? lol

Ladies and Gentlemen, it has begun, liberals flummoxed and preparing for battle.

The reason you have no answer to my pertinent points is because you yourself do not know what you stand for.

Forget 3D, try 4D politics.

 

[Technics 1210]

Why would I humor you and answer your questions if you have shown all inclinations of not even paying attention to them? I think its important for any exchange of thoughts to be reciprocal. I already addressed most of the points you have raised so far in this exchange but I seem to be circling back to them over and over again. its like pouring water on a duck. Go back and read my last few posts again for answers to the questions you keep repeating over and over again.

Case in point, liberalism in a nutshell. Running away from the facts because the truth hurts. No counter, just emotive rhetoric.

Please do not respond to my points/posts, you liberals add no value, just violence, hypocrisy, and asinine drivel.

Trump 2024!

 

[Stewie]

Case in point, liberalism in a nutshell. Running away from the facts because the truth hurts. No counter, just emotive rhetoric.

Please do not respond to my points/posts, you liberals add no value, just violence, hypocrisy, and asinine drivel.

Trump 2024!

wow just wow.. ROFL

This has been such an enlightening exchange. Bravo, sir! lol

 

[Technics 1210]

2009 : Nick Clegg - leader of the Liberal Democratic Party - no tuition fees.

2010 : Cameron to Clegg, wanna be deputy PM? If so, renage on tution fees.

Clegg : Done deal, and we will also pass the parliamentary vote on EU referendum. 5 to 1.

Rest is history.

 

[Robert]

Liberalism is the reason we can discuss politics on PP without getting disappeared by the state. This discussion would not be allowed in authoritarian states such as Russia and NK.

Liberalism in the West derives from Spinoza, Locke, Voltaire, Franklin, Jefferson, the Mills. Were these perfect people? No. Locke advocated white supremacy. Jefferson kept slaves and didn’t free his baby mama after he died. But they laid foundations for the fairer societies we see today. Later thinkers finished their job.

Do liberals get into enclaves like FBPE? Sure, for mutual support against people calling us libtaards and such. We are only human after all. But we look out of the enclave and say “Join us!”. We have no in-group and out-group like conservatives. All people are our in-group.

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberals : Putin must stand for war crimes. What he did is illegal, immoral, unjust.

What about Blair and Bush and war in Iraq?

Liberals : We made a mistake, iffy intelligence, but saved 20 cents on the gallon, move on. Pretend like it never happened because we seek peace by forcing an ideology as a pretext to peace.

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberals : You have freedom of speech; our forefathers faught for said freedom!

Putin is a true leader for his people.

Liberals : Banned.

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberals : We live in a democratic society.

Brexit wins.

Liberals. We need another referendum.

Part 2:

Liberals : We pride in American freedom and democracy.

Trump wins.

Liberals. 50 Million turned racists overnight and the Russian are to blame. Trump must be impeached.

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberals : No nation should have chemical weapons.

OK makes sense.

Liberals : We manufacture chemical weapons and sell to the highest bidder.

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberals : Abortions must be banned

Yup got it.

Liberals : But you have a right to bear arms and kill people in defence.

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberals : I am taking the knee for police brutality against blacks

Sounds like a good idea.

Liberals : I sing the national anthem with pride when NATO destroy innocent lives and generations.

Wait what about blacks suffering in Africa?

Liberals : Until the media reports it, not our problem.

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberals : There is no difference between a male and female.

You what?

Liberals : We have created a 3rd sex, defying nature, it's called non-binary. This is not based on genetics but on how one feels.

I feel like Jesus has saved me!

Liberals : Jailed and condemned for an eternity.

 

[Cover Drive Six]

[MENTION=149166]Technics 1210[/MENTION]

You nailed it

 

[ftbno1]

Bush was right wing same as Putin, UBL Or ur dear leader. You obviously didn't see opposition of iraq war in US. So iraq condones what Russia is doing in Ukraine???
How loudly did you cheer when kids bodies were coming out in buried school.

 

[ftbno1]

Liberals : Putin must stand for war crimes. What he did is illegal, immoral, unjust.

What about Blair and Bush and war in Iraq?

Liberals : We made a mistake, iffy intelligence, but saved 20 cents on the gallon, move on. Pretend like it never happened because we seek peace by forcing an ideology as a pretext to peace.

Bush was right wing same as Putin, UBL Or ur dear leader. You obviously didn't see opposition of iraq war in US. So iraq condones what Russia is doing in Ukraine???
How loudly did you cheer when kids bodies were coming out in buried schoolBush was right wing same as Putin, UBL Or ur dear leader. You obviously didn't see opposition of iraq war in US. So iraq condones what Russia is doing in Ukraine???
How loudly did you cheer when kids bodies were coming out in buried school

 

[ftbno1]

Liberals : You have freedom of speech; our forefathers faught for said freedom!

Putin is a true leader for his people.

Liberals : Banned.

He is crook who sold assets of his country.

 

[ftbno1]

Liberals : You have freedom of speech; our forefathers faught for said freedom!

Putin is a true leader for his people.

Liberals : Banned.

He is crook who sold assets of his country to fill his pockets. Responsible for deaths of countless russians in pointless war.

 

[ftbno1]

Liberals : I am taking the knee for police brutality against blacks

Sounds like a good idea.

Liberals : I sing the national anthem with pride when NATO destroy innocent lives and generations.

Wait what about blacks suffering in Africa?

Liberals : Until the media reports it, not our problem.

So no one should ever protest about anything until all the problems of world are resolved?? ARE YOU REAL??

 

[ftbno1]

Liberals : Abortions must be banned

Yup got it.

Liberals : But you have a right to bear arms and kill people in defence.

Liberals are against second amendment. Which liberals says abortions must be banned. I think your wires got screwed somewhere.

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberals : We believe in the freedom of press.

Check this OP-ED out, doesn't follow the Western narrative.

Liberals : Banned. Condemned. Strip the author of their credentials. Block their bank accounts and seize their assets.

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberals : We oppose the killing of animals! Turn vegan!

I love a Big Mac

Liberals : I love my leather shoes and handbag too.

 

[BreadPakoda]

Liberals: You don’t want the jab? Why can’t you follow the science? The science!!! *cries profusely*

Also liberals: There are 15,842 genders

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberal : OBL killed in the name of God, he is a terrorist!

Bush claimed he was doing God's work in the ME.

Liberal : Bush is a freedom fighter! How dare you!

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberals : We not believe in God! He does not exist! He is responsible for Homophobia!

Palestinians are suffering.

Liberals : Jews have a divine right to their promised land! God says so in the Torah!

 

[Technics 1210]

I could go on and on and on like a Duracell bunny in exposing the hypocrisy, duplicity, and fallacy of Liberalism.

Here is the cold hard FACT. Liberalism is governed, dictated, and promoted by the MSM - this is why Liberalism is in a dilemma, its subscribers do not know what they stand for, because liberals cannot think for themselves, and thus must resort to towing the MSM narrative.

So much for intellectual freedom.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Politics is about finding a balance between liberalism (with a small l) and conservatism (with a small c).

The extremes of both of these groups are dangerous places to be.

However I can say hand on heart that most liberals are more intelligent than conservatives.

Take from that what you will.

 

[Stewie]

Politics is about finding a balance between liberalism (with a small l) and conservatism (with a small c).

The extremes of both of these groups are dangerous places to be.

However I can say hand on heart that most liberals are more intelligent than conservatives.

Take from that what you will.

You must have read through this thread. lol

 

[DeadlyVenom]

wow just wow.. ROFL

This has been such an enlightening exchange. Bravo, sir! lol

The thing is most of his examples - Iraq, abortion, guns, military industrial complex etc are positions adopted by Conservatives in the US.

 

[Major]

wow just wow.. ROFL

This has been such an enlightening exchange. Bravo, sir! lol

Brother, have had arguments with this poster. He will keep on ranting, he will ignore your post and find a spelling mistake or something else to discredit you.

How he bashes liberalism, same methodolgy ia used by people who are islamophobic. They generalize aswell

 

[BreadPakoda]

Politics is about finding a balance between liberalism (with a small l) and conservatism (with a small c).

The extremes of both of these groups are dangerous places to be.

Absolutely agree. I’m opposed to conservatives when it comes to gun and abortion laws but also opposed to liberals when it comes to illegal immigration, gender ideology, student loan waivers, etc.

 

[Robert]

Politics is about finding a balance between liberalism (with a small l) and conservatism (with a small c).

The extremes of both of these groups are dangerous places to be.

However I can say hand on heart that most liberals are more intelligent than conservatives.

Take from that what you will.

It’s an analogue scale not digital. American conservatives are liberal in some ways such as gun ownership, commerce and freedom of speech.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

It’s an analogue scale not digital. American conservatives are liberal in some ways such as gun ownership, commerce and freedom of speech.

Sure - but its easier to measure on a digital scale, especially if we use the more modern definitions of the terms than the classical ones.

The red hat wearing, gun carrying, Trump supporter moaning about libtards and woke cultural marxists, adamant that he has a right to bear arms and make racist statements considers himself a conservative not a liberal.

 

[Junaids]

Anyone who thinks that "liberal" means left-wing is a complete nincompoop.

In the USA you have two political parties: the Republicans are a right-wing but socially conservative party while the Democrats are a right-wing but more socially progressive party.

Republicans try to excite their new, uneducated base by painting the Democrats as left-wing but they clearly are not - the Democrats are to the right of any mainstream political party in the UK or Europe.

Here in Australia the right-wing party is called the Liberal party, while the centre-left party is the Labor Party.

This is one area where I respectfully disagree with [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] classifying politics by two axes of left-right and authoritarian/democratic.

To me there are two axes, but those are not the two axes. To me, authoritarians from Putin to Modi have no place on a political grid, because they should be in prison.

To me, the two axes are:

Axis 1: left - centre - right.
Axis 2: socially progressive - liberal - socially conservative.

Having said that, I do not believe that people who identify as socially conservative should be allowed to possess scissors, or guns, or the right to vote. They are the very definition of what the word "backward" means - they do not want society to develop or grow, but rather they want to live in the past.

One problem is that in social terms it is still socially acceptable to identify as socially conservative in many societies. As long as that is the case we will live in a world of school shootings, the reversal of Roe versus Wade, patriarchy, cousin marriages and honour killings. And that is a tragic waste of human lives.

 

[JaDed]

Anyone who thinks that "liberal" means left-wing is a complete nincompoop.

In the USA you have two political parties: the Republicans are a right-wing but socially conservative party while the Democrats are a right-wing but more socially progressive party.

Republicans try to excite their new, uneducated base by painting the Democrats as left-wing but they clearly are not - the Democrats are to the right of any mainstream political party in the UK or Europe.

Here in Australia the right-wing party is called the Liberal party, while the centre-left party is the Labor Party.

This is one area where I respectfully disagree with [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] classifying politics by two axes of left-right and authoritarian/democratic.

To me there are two axes, but those are not the two axes. To me, authoritarians from Putin to Modi have no place on a political grid, because they should be in prison.

To me, the two axes are:

Axis 1: left - centre - right.
Axis 2: socially progressive - liberal - socially conservative.

Having said that, I do not believe that people who identify as socially conservative should be allowed to possess scissors, or guns, or the right to vote. They are the very definition of what the word "backward" means - they do not want society to develop or grow, but rather they want to live in the past.

One problem is that in social terms it is still socially acceptable to identify as socially conservative in many societies. As long as that is the case we will live in a world of school shootings, the reversal of Roe versus Wade, patriarchy, cousin marriages and honour killings. And that is a tragic waste of human lives.

How is Modi Authoritarian like Putin, if he can’t win so many states in India?

The blame lies on Indian National opposition that keeps putting the incompetent Rahul Gandhi ahead to face Modi.

Irrespective of what anyone says Parliamentary politics also desires strong leadership with great oratory skills.

 

[Robert]

Here in Australia the right-wing party is called the Liberal party, while the centre-left party is the Labor Party.

This is one area where I respectfully disagree with [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] classifying politics by two axes of left-right and authoritarian/democratic.

To me there are two axes, but those are not the two axes. To me, authoritarians from Putin to Modi have no place on a political grid, because they should be in prison.

To me, the two axes are:

Axis 1: left - centre - right.
Axis 2: socially progressive - liberal - socially conservative.

Authoritarian-liberal not authoritarian-democratic. Thatcher and Bush 43 were somewhat authoritarian while still remaining respectful to the democratic process.

Scotty from Marketing strikes me as a somewhat right wing somewhat authoritarian populist like Trump, or what Johnson has morphed into.

 

[Firebat]

Some people here seem to be very confused...

There is a poster who thinks a Liberal believes in banning abortions, more than 2 genders and BLM at the same time as being a pro-Israel, pro-2nd Amendment patriotic imperialist who thinks Bush is a freedom fighter?

Who are these people? They don't exist )

 

[James]

Having said that, I do not believe that people who identify as socially conservative should be allowed to possess scissors, or guns, or the right to vote. They are the very definition of what the word "backward" means - they do not want society to develop or grow, but rather they want to live in the past.

One problem is that in social terms it is still socially acceptable to identify as socially conservative in many societies. As long as that is the case we will live in a world of school shootings, the reversal of Roe versus Wade, patriarchy, cousin marriages and honour killings. And that is a tragic waste of human lives.

One of the more narrow definitions of conservatism that I have read.

Saying that “people who disagree with me” should not have the right to vote is also basically the most anti-liberal and indeed “backward” idea that someone could come up with…

 

[MP2011]

The blame lies on Indian National opposition that keeps putting the incompetent Rahul Gandhi ahead to face Modi.

Very simplistic thing to say.

Rahul may be incompetent but people in general in India have become obsessed with Hindu-Muslim, temples, cows and anyone who can 'put Muslims in place' is the one they'll go with, no matter what. They don't care about inflation, economy, law & order, national security, healthcare or infrastructure.

And hence despite presiding over one disaster after another, feku is getting free pass to power for last 8 years.

And there is a small matter of most of Indian media (especially Hindi media seen by masses) being his stooge which blows his trumpet all day long.

 

[MP2011]

You really think anyone else would have got votes in such a scenario? Tharoor, Scindia, Pilot, Any of the Yadavs, Mamata, Stalin, Uddhav?

Political narrative in India has changed completely during last 8 years. One who can communally polarize the electorate or tell maximum lies is the one who wins.

 

[JaDed]

You really think anyone else would have got votes in such a scenario? Tharoor, Scindia, Pilot, Any of the Yadavs, Mamata, Stalin, Uddhav?

Political narrative in India has changed completely during last 8 years. One who can communally polarize the electorate or tell maximum lies is the one who wins.

Stalin did win… Mamta did as well but they cannot have national presence due to them being regional parties and bias, Patnaik same thing.

Arvind Kejrival is the last option and he took can speak like a victim sometimes.

On the above reply of RG, Pilot can actually win.. BJP wins because it has a huge monetary backing along with oratory skills of many leaders plus the ground work done by RSS-BJP.

Congress office in Chennai was near my father’s work area and I have not seen a bigger mess.. and thats how they work locally.. they have no plan and Congress keeps favoring the loyalists.( I used to support Congress back then, my family moved from Congress supporters to BJP ones during 2005-2009 onwards, I supported them till 2015ish but they refuse to change)

This is just my opinion but I hope Congress will see the light of the day soon.

 

[Junaids]

One of the more narrow definitions of conservatism that I have read.

Saying that “people who disagree with me” should not have the right to vote is also basically the most anti-liberal and indeed “backward” idea that someone could come up with…

Very good point.

I’m economically conservative but socially progressive. And I live in a country devastated by three yearly elections in which voting is compulsory and effectively the balance of power is held by ignorant, uneducated socially conservative cretins who would not vote in most other countries.

I’m into my sixth decade. I know from too many decades of experience that social conservatism is like a cancer at the heart of society, and I simply won’t tolerate it any more.

I would go the other way from compulsory voting: I would make voting rights conditional upon passing a test of political and social knowledge. Not a wokery test, but a competence test. For example, all the ultra-conservatives in flyover states in the USA who are driven only by God, guns and a hatred of abortion would be highly unlikely to pass a test of minimum knowledge. And I would strip them of their right to vote or own weapons.

 

[James]

Very good point.

I’m economically conservative but socially progressive. And I live in a country devastated by three yearly elections in which voting is compulsory and effectively the balance of power is held by ignorant, uneducated socially conservative cretins who would not vote in most other countries.

I’m into my sixth decade. I know from too many decades of experience that social conservatism is like a cancer at the heart of society, and I simply won’t tolerate it any more.

I would go the other way from compulsory voting: I would make voting rights conditional upon passing a test of political and social knowledge. Not a wokery test, but a competence test. For example, all the ultra-conservatives in flyover states in the USA who are driven only by God, guns and a hatred of abortion would be highly unlikely to pass a test of minimum knowledge. And I would strip them of their right to vote or own weapons.

One problem with a knowledge, education, competence-based voting system is that this in of itself is going backwards to the days of feudal elitism and marginalised groups / ethnic minorities being conveniently excluded from the franchise; not because they are not competent, but because of prejudice and discrimination.

 

[MP2011]

Stalin did win… Mamta did as well but they cannot have national presence due to them being regional parties and bias, Patnaik same thing.

Arvind Kejrival is the last option and he took can speak like a victim sometimes.

What I obviously implied above was to win nationally, not in state elections. Its easier to win state elections but far more difficult to win a national mandate.

 

[MP2011]

BJP wins because it has a huge monetary backing along with oratory skills of many leaders plus the ground work done by RSS-BJP.

sanghis have always been flush with funds due to Hindutva especially from '90s onwards. Also, they always have great orators, starting from Vajpayee, Mahajan, Advani, Sushma, Jaitley, the list is endless........

Also, RSS has always been going the groundwork for them.

So what's changed in last 8 years? Obviously something happened which didn't happen even in Atal-Advani times.

 

[Junaids]

One of the more narrow definitions of conservatism that I have read.

Saying that “people who disagree with me” should not have the right to vote is also basically the most anti-liberal and indeed “backward” idea that someone could come up with…

One problem with a knowledge, education, competence-based voting system is that this in of itself is going backwards to the days of feudal elitism and marginalised groups / ethnic minorities being conveniently excluded from the franchise; not because they are not competent, but because of prejudice and discrimination.

I’m not arguing for qualification by wealth or social class, but by ability to understand and repeat what the platforms of the major parties are.

To give you an example, since the Texas school massacre we have NRA groupie Republicans repeating the lie that the proven solution to gun massacres is good guys with guns. Whereas actually the proven solution is removing guns from society (as both Australia and New Zealand have proved).

So people voting on the false pretext of “good guys with guns” have demonstrated that they are unqualified to vote.

Similarly, multiple court cases in the USA disproved the 2020 Stolen Election myth.

So have a question about that in the voting exam, and anyone who argues that it is true should be disqualified as incompetent to vote.

You will get much better Governance when you require people to prove their fitness to vote. I’m not some leftie saying this - I’m a One Nation Tory / Bush Republican who is watching the US and UK hurtle backwards because incompetent voters have decided elections on the basis of propaganda - just like Putin’s Russia.

Social Conservatism is a form of mass stupidity based on ignorance that right-wing populists use to win elections. And it’s actually destroying the right-wing parties that I support.

Liberalism is no threat to anyone. Economic conservatism is no threat to anyone.

But social conservatism is sheer poison.

 

[Robert]

Very good point.

I’m economically conservative but socially progressive. And I live in a country devastated by three yearly elections in which voting is compulsory and effectively the balance of power is held by ignorant, uneducated socially conservative cretins who would not vote in most other countries.

I’m into my sixth decade. I know from too many decades of experience that social conservatism is like a cancer at the heart of society, and I simply won’t tolerate it any more.

I would go the other way from compulsory voting: I would make voting rights conditional upon passing a test of political and social knowledge. Not a wokery test, but a competence test. For example, all the ultra-conservatives in flyover states in the USA who are driven only by God, guns and a hatred of abortion would be highly unlikely to pass a test of minimum knowledge. And I would strip them of their right to vote or own weapons.

I like your idea of a competence test for voters, on paper.

My worry would be that the horde of disenfranchised people would organise under some populist, and start an armed insurrection.

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] - social media has changed politics. Those who were disengaged from watching the news are engaged by the populists through FB at home, and from hostile foreign powers such as Russia’s troll houses.

So for example in the Brexit referendum we saw tower blocks where the turnout was generally around 25% increase to 75% on the day.

The same year we saw American black voters stay at home, dissuaded to vote because social media messaging told them nothing would change.

The more I think of voter competence tests the more it worries me though. The Tories are changing the law to require picture ID, disenfranchising a million who are likely to vote Labour. We are on a slippery slope to rigged elections like in Putin’s Russia. We don’t want to end up in a totalitarian Heinlein state where only soldiers get to vote.

 

[James]

I like your idea of a competence test for voters, on paper.

My worry would be that the horde of disenfranchised people would organise under some populist, and start an armed insurrection.

I take a different view: citizen’s assemblies are underrated and underused. Which is a far smaller and more educated, informed franchise, but still broad, and also less prone to elitism.

This was Rory Stewart’s suggestion to resolve Brexit if he had become the PM and I think it would have worked well.

 

[Technics 1210]

Champion democracy but reduce the voter base by testing their intelligence.

“We are all equal but some are more equal than others”

As I have said, Liberalism is the new face of fascism; they do not believe in Democracy, especially when they lose.

Just get it over and done with, Liberals should start endorsing authoritarianism.

 

[James]

Champion democracy but reduce the voter base by testing their intelligence.

“We are all equal but some are more equal than others”

As I have said, Liberalism is the new face of fascism; they do not believe in Democracy, especially when they lose.

Just get it over and done with, Liberals should start endorsing authoritarianism.

Peter Hitchens called it “The New Liberal Bigotry”.

 

[Junaids]

Champion democracy but reduce the voter base by testing their intelligence.

“We are all equal but some are more equal than others”

As I have said, Liberalism is the new face of fascism; they do not believe in Democracy, especially when they lose.

Just get it over and done with, Liberals should start endorsing authoritarianism.

I’m not saying you should test intelligence - I’m saying you should test knowledge.

You don’t get to drive a car without passing a driving test. Why should you get to vote if you can’t demonstrate a minimum objective level of knowledge?

 

[Technics 1210]

I’m not saying you should test intelligence - I’m saying you should test knowledge.

You don’t get to drive a car without passing a driving test. Why should you get to vote if you can’t demonstrate a minimum objective level of knowledge?

Bad analogy. You have to learn to drive so that you can drive safely, within the rules, and not end up killing/injuring anyone!

What next? Pass an English exam and master the works of Shakespeare before posting on Forums?

Intelligence is the application of knowledge - a tomato is a fruit but intelligence tells you not to put it in a fruit salad - anyone can tune in and soak the knowledge from political parties, which is mostly spin, what it means is a different story altogether.

Maybe, just maybe, political leaders should start speaking the truth?