Postby jwocky » Wed Sep 14, 2016 3:54 pm
Lydiot, if they would, I wouldn't be so upset. By me they can smoke as much pot as they want (and while I don't I wouldn't claim, it's a specific liberal habit). But please, do it in your own place, away from kids and don't promote it to kids either.
The other half is the "free love" idiom of the 60s and 70s, which is actually very left-wing and even most official liberals seem to distance themselves from it lately. People said "free love" but meant in fact "free sex". Which is in my book not entirely the same thing. "Love" entails a lot more. But hey, I don't care as long as the rights of others are also protected. If it is consensual ... and not enforced by some group-dynamics as well ... have fun.
The problem, especially with those labelling themselves "liberals" in the Us are on another level. First of all, liberalism is an ideology based on the maximum liberty for the individual and an as small government as possible. But the "liberals" here are calling all the time for big government and control and regulation everywhere, down to the point how often you are allowed to use the flushing lever of your toilette (no kidding). That is a difference to what is considered a liberal in other countries. Maybe Vincent can drop in and tell us about Dutch liberals.
Another thing, specifically about "liberals" in the US is their urge to change history to make it fit to their current political image they want to paint. Historically, the Republicans were founded as the anti-slavery party, the Democrats as the pro-slavery party.
The current version of "liberal" history unfolds nowadays in discussions as follows ...
Step 1: Yeah, but the all changed after the Civil War
-> No, after the Civil War, Democrats founded the KKK and some other wild bands riding around and shooting people like the James Brothers did (who were by so-called "liberal" directors painted later as folk heros). Actually, till 9/11, the Democrats were for the Freedmen Massacres the worst terror organization on American soil. More than 3000 freed slaves and Republicans were killed in a series of ambushes in 1868
Step 2: Okay okay, but that all changed and we became he party of Civil Rights
-> No, actually not. Of the currently 8 Civil Rights amendments in the Constitution, 7 were written, introduced, voted through against Democratic resistance and singed into laws by Republicans. The 1964 one, the one Democrats brought in was actually supported by the Republicans (who voted how is available in the Library of Congress). However, this support is no miracle or sudden love for Democrats. Actually, id you compare the 1964 Civil Rights Act with the one 1888 brought to fall by the Democrats in the Supreme Court, it holds the same provisions. For example no discrimination in public transport ... 80 years before Rosa Parks was even born.
The problem was, Dr. Martin Luther King, a Republican, got too much traction and Democrats had to do something or they would lose the next elections. So JFK deduasted the old Civil Rights Act, originally written, introdiced, voted through against Democratic resistance and signed into law by Republicans and then brought to fall by Democrats in the Supreme Court, and made it this one big glaring "liberal" Civil Rights achievement. We know how history played out, JFK was assassinated, Martin Luther King was assassinated (both by killers from the allegedly left: James Earl Ray was a helper in the Wallace campaign in Alabama, a scapegoat as it looks though, or rather a man used as it appears in Correta Scott King vs. Loyd Jowers. And Lee Harvey Oswald, who had lived a while in Russia and tried to become a Russian citizen reasoning, he would be a communist, later, after his return to the US, he allegedly tried to kill Gen. Walker, a segregationist and member not only of the John Birch Society but also the Democratic party.
Thus, with MLK and JFK dead, it was LBJ who brought in the harvest. The day the law went through with the votes of Democrats and Republicans and Democrats, he commented "and now the niggers will vote Democrat for the next 200 years". Excuse the n-word, it was was LBJ said.
Step 3: Okay but we promoted racial equality
-> No, "liberal" and the Democratic party did not. All Jim Crow laws, the campaigns of Wallace, the campaigns in Florida, the rise of Bud Mackay and the Senators Byrd and Fulbright, those were all things that happened on the Democratic side of the aisle. But while that all happened, in New York, the next generation was already trained. Have you ever heard of the Association of Black Lawyers?
Step 4: That were all the Dixie-Crats, they left after the 1964 Act and became all Republicans.
-> Actually a few did, they got never traction there. In the 1980s, Dave Duke for example, the son of such a Dixiecrat, ran on Democrat's tickets. And in the 980s, ten years after allegedly those dixiecrats left the Democratic party, with Senator Byrd, Senator Fulbright, Dave Duke and Bud Mackay, four of the five leading KKK grand Dragons and Wizards were not only members of the Democratic party but leading members. Byrd, Fulbright and Mackay would be remaining high ranking KKK members till their respective deaths (in 2000, when Byrd was buried, Harry Reid in his eulogy praised Byrd as a "great American"). Dave Duke is, unfortunately, still around. He tried to prove the "liberal" line that Republicans are racists by running himself for several offices on Republican ticket but was always cut off early in the primaries.
So the truth is, the Democrats kept their racists and their KKK friends, at least some of them. But there was a change in tactics in the 1980s and we can see it quite easy if we open the eyes. Dave Duke embraced for example a black candidate and reasoned it in the press it was not because he suddenly like niggers (his words, not mine), but because said nigger (his words, not mine) was such a Jew-hater, he was acceptable. The subject of antisemitism has become since the 1980s a recurring pattern in the "liberal" narrative. "Don't support Israel", "the Jews rule here everything", "the Republicans are controlled by the Jews", "bad bad rich Jews", etc, etc.
Step 5: I don't know those people, you are telling lies (the usual jump out of a discussion)
-> You may have heard of Bill and Hilary Clinton then? Their first political mentor was Senator Fulbright, a lifelong KKK member and Democrat. We find his name also on the Southern Manifesto. Bill Clinton said about him "I admired him. I liked him. On the occasions when we disagreed, I loved arguing with him. I never loved getting in an argument with anybody as much in my entire life as I loved fighting with Bill Fulbright. I'm quite sure I always lost, and yet he managed to make me think I might have won." Bill Clinton also honored Fulbright with the Presidential Medal of Freedom on May 5, 1993.
Step 6: No, you got it all wrong (another desperate try to leave real world history)
-> Well yeah, all those things are on public record. People need only to look them up. And the things those so-called liberals and I talk here specifically the US brand, are much more dangerous than just smoking pot and having free sex.
So ... after I wrote down again uncomfy things from rl history, I expect to get jumped again. And we haven't even touched subjects like betrayal in war, politics on crime or economics. Things that necessarily would really go into details or, for heaven's sake, into math!
Free speech can never be achieved by dictatorial measures!
