|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Feb 14, 2017 20:48:09 GMT
In the first place leftists and liberals are not the same thing; leftists despise liberals as much as right-wingers do because, like them, they are extreme.
Secondly, how does sincerely disagreeing with a point of view (popular or otherwise) make a person a fake?
I voted for Brexit; do you imagine I consider my Remainer friends and relatives to be insincere?
There is polemic and there is downright misrepresentation.
This is a clear case of deliberate misrepresentation.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 21, 2017 16:59:44 GMT
In the first place leftists and liberals are not the same thing; leftists despise liberals as much as right-wingers do because, like them, they are extreme. Secondly, how does sincerely disagreeing with a point of view (popular or otherwise) make a person a fake? I voted for Brexit; do you imagine I consider my Remainer friends and relatives to be insincere? There is polemic and there is downright misrepresentation. This is a clear case of deliberate misrepresentation. You have to fight for your word "liberal" mikemarshall because that word has been highjacked by leftists. The people in politics who are selling themselves as liberals have a very bad agenda. Their ACTIONS are bad! You are probably just an ideologue of old school liberalism and your views have little or no influence on society as a whole. Still I congratulate and applaud you for voting BREXIT.
I could be called a nationalist because I respect borders and cheer for my team and expect that fair rules be followed.
Nationalism like liberalism has been highjacked and I doubt that I have the time to santitise that word. I don't see Hitler for instance as a nationalist since his sytem was basically a modern remake of the Roman Empire. Hitler's hostility towards Jews and nomads was probably a result of his belief that they were responsible for the decline of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire of course was arguably the biggest oppressor of Germanic nationalism in history. In nearby Stuttgart the Romans had a city in Cannstatt and lured the leaders of the German nationalist freedom fighters in for peace negotations. All those who came were executed. The Romans were a treacherous, feudalistic anti- German nationalist oppressor, but Hitler loved them as his private talks reveal.
Hitler probably would have become a Roman legonaire had he lived then and worked his way up in this totalitarian system. Hail Ceasar became Heil Hitler ( an idea of Rudolf Hess ) in the NS movement. A slave labor based economy, absolute obedience to orders, no free speech, constant wars that were largely avoidable, etc.. Not my idea of what nationalism should be, but the masses have been brainwashed to think otherwise so I'll try words like populism or separatism since people love labels and insist that they be used.
Fight for your preferred label Mike, but don't call others deceitful when they go with the flow and respond to the actions of those who call themselves liberal.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 28, 2017 0:31:36 GMT
Dearest mikemarshall and Big Lin , With all due respect you are free to fight for + defend your definition of liberalism and challenge people claiming to be liberals, but aren't your eyes.
However since you accuse me DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) and others on this board of misrepresentation + disception since we refuse to grant Islam a status of equality among religions I don't see why we should make special concessions to the word liberal and what it has come to mean. It seems the people who call themselves Muslims or Liberals as a whole are having a terrible time in the real world as far as real world actions and results go.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 1, 2017 21:18:38 GMT
Dearest mikemarshall and Big Lin , With all due respect you are free to fight for + defend your definition of liberalism and challenge people claiming to be liberals, but aren't your eyes.
However since you accuse me DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) and others on this board of misrepresentation + disception since we refuse to grant Islam a status of equality among religions I don't see why we should make special concessions to the word liberal and what it has come to mean. It seems the people who call themselves Muslims or Liberals are as a whole are having a terrible time in the real world as far as real world actions and results go. Michael Moore isn't a liberal. He's openly admitted he's a Marxist and with all respect to Gorbachev liberalism and Marxism don't mix. In the real world REAL liberals are fighting against socialists, religious extremists, far-right nationalists and authoritarians of every political and religious affiliation. I have CONSISTENTLY spoke OUT and CONDEMNED Muslim terrorists; just as I have ETA (even though I strongly support Basque independence), the Tamil Tigers (even though the Sinhalese treat the Tamils appallingly), the Naxalites (even though the BJP are corrupt racist Hindu bigots), the Shining Path (even though Peru is a corrupt oligarchy). And so on and so on. You know, liberalism rests on the notion of individual and mutually respected human rights. That's the BEDROCK of liberal values. As soon as you start getting into class, race, ethnicity, religion, gender and so on and start wanting special treatment for them you STOP being a liberal. I am a proud Romany gypsy; do you think I like every single Romany I meet? A few years ago I got into a fight in Spain with a woman who tried to snatch my handbag and I had to give her a bloody good seeing-to as well as telling her a few choice Romany swear words (which stunned her). I'm not naive or ignorant; there are good and bad people everywhere. But to try and present Michael Moore as a liberal is a joke. He's about as liberal as Nick Griffin or Abu Hamza or Vlad Putin. I'm working on a book which I'll obviously have to self-publish where I advocate strongly for TRUE liberalism over the FAKE variety. I may follow it up with one describing TRUE conservatism as opposed to the FAKE version.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 1, 2017 21:47:29 GMT
There must be a semantics problem here Lin. American's who self identify as "Liberals" do not fit your description which is:
"As soon as you start getting into class, race, ethnicity, religion, gender and so on and start wanting special treatment for them you STOP being a liberal."
Our liberals are all about special treatment for blacks, gays and transexuals, Muslims, Mexican illegals, etc.
Michael Moore presents himself as a liberal.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 2, 2017 22:22:09 GMT
There must be a semantics problem here Lin. American's who self identify as "Liberals" do not fit your description which is: "As soon as you start getting into class, race, ethnicity, religion, gender and so on and start wanting special treatment for them you STOP being a liberal." Our liberals are all about special treatment for blacks, gays and transexuals, Muslims, Mexican illegals, etc. Michael Moore presents himself as a liberal. Yes, it's true that the US and Britain ARE 'two nations separated by a common language.' Just as 90% of the world calls what you call 'soccer' by its proper name of 'football,' so too almost every country in the world EXCEPT America uses liberal and conservatives in the CORRECT way. Now I have said REPEATEDLY that MOST Americans who call themselves liberals are NOT. They are one of the three following groups in almost EVERY case I've come across - online or in real life: 1 Social democrats or socialists 2 Racists, feminists, LBTG types wanting special favours for their group 3 What we'd call over here 'one nation Conservatives' - paternalist types who want to be fair and tolerant but their instinctive authoritarianism leads them to believe they know BETTER than the people what they want and need As for Moore, I've seen him (three times, unfortunately) on TV. I've also read a couple of his books. He quite openly admits - both in one of his books and on TV - that he is a Marxist. Now Marxism is a philosophy that's totally incompatible with liberalism. Even in the woolly-minded US definition of it! As I said, I've decided to write a book about the philosophy of liberalism. I've only just started it so it will probably be about three months before I finish it! But I think (certainly hope!) you'll find it interesting. For what it's worth I belong to a lot of forums run by people (and whose members identify as) US conservatives. And on twenty different issues they said my views were conservative ones. I don't agree with them because I think that's a cultural interpretation - for example, supporting or opposing the death penalty in Britain cuts right across political divides. I actually know MORE conservatives who are against capital punishment than I do socialists, for example.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 2, 2017 23:46:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 3, 2017 23:30:55 GMT
There must be a semantics problem here Lin. American's who self identify as "Liberals" do not fit your description which is: "As soon as you start getting into class, race, ethnicity, religion, gender and so on and start wanting special treatment for them you STOP being a liberal." Our liberals are all about special treatment for blacks, gays and transexuals, Muslims, Mexican illegals, etc. Michael Moore presents himself as a liberal. Yes, it's true that the US and Britain ARE 'two nations separated by a common language.' Just as 90% of the world calls what you call 'soccer' by its proper name of 'football,' so too almost every country in the world EXCEPT America uses liberal and conservatives in the CORRECT way. Now I have said REPEATEDLY that MOST Americans who call themselves liberals are NOT. They are one of the three following groups in almost EVERY case I've come across - online or in real life: 1 Social democrats or socialists 2 Racists, feminists, LBTG types wanting special favours for their group 3 What we'd call over here 'one nation Conservatives' - paternalist types who want to be fair and tolerant but their instinctive authoritarianism leads them to believe they know BETTER than the people what they want and need As for Moore, I've seen him (three times, unfortunately) on TV. I've also read a couple of his books. He quite openly admits - both in one of his books and on TV - that he is a Marxist. Now Marxism is a philosophy that's totally incompatible with liberalism. Even in the woolly-minded US definition of it! As I said, I've decided to write a book about the philosophy of liberalism. I've only just started it so it will probably be about three months before I finish it! But I think (certainly hope!) you'll find it interesting. For what it's worth I belong to a lot of forums run by people (and whose members identify as) US conservatives. And on twenty different issues they said my views were conservative ones. I don't agree with them because I think that's a cultural interpretation - for example, supporting or opposing the death penalty in Britain cuts right across political divides. I actually know MORE conservatives who are against capital punishment than I do socialists, for example. Very interesting post Lin. Thanks for putting it up here. Thanks to you, I now understand that American liberals have hijacked the word "Liberal." They also hijacked the words 'Gay' to describe homosexuals, and 'Progressive' to describe their own socialist leaning policies I'm going to stop describing them as liberals and use leftists instead. Thank you ♫anna♫
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 4, 2017 6:19:46 GMT
Dearest mikemarshall and Big Lin , With all due respect you are free to fight for + defend your definition of liberalism and challenge people claiming to be liberals, but aren't your eyes.
However since you accuse me DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) and others on this board of misrepresentation + disception since we refuse to grant Islam a status of equality among religions I don't see why we should make special concessions to the word liberal and what it has come to mean. It seems the people who call themselves Muslims or Liberals are as a whole are having a terrible time in the real world as far as real world actions and results go. Michael Moore isn't a liberal. He's openly admitted he's a Marxist and with all respect to Gorbachev liberalism and Marxism don't mix. In the real world REAL liberals are fighting against socialists, religious extremists, far-right nationalists and authoritarians of every political and religious affiliation. I have CONSISTENTLY spoke OUT and CONDEMNED Muslim terrorists; just as I have ETA (even though I strongly support Basque independence), the Tamil Tigers (even though the Sinhalese treat the Tamils appallingly), the Naxalites (even though the BJP are corrupt racist Hindu bigots), the Shining Path (even though Peru is a corrupt oligarchy). And so on and so on. You know, liberalism rests on the notion of individual and mutually respected human rights. That's the BEDROCK of liberal values. As soon as you start getting into class, race, ethnicity, religion, gender and so on and start wanting special treatment for them you STOP being a liberal. I am a proud Romany gypsy; do you think I like every single Romany I meet? A few years ago I got into a fight in Spain with a woman who tried to snatch my handbag and I had to give her a bloody good seeing-to as well as telling her a few choice Romany swear words (which stunned her). I'm not naive or ignorant; there are good and bad people everywhere. But to try and present Michael Moore as a liberal is a joke. He's about as liberal as Nick Griffin or Abu Hamza or Vlad Putin. I'm working on a book which I'll obviously have to self-publish where I advocate strongly for TRUE liberalism over the FAKE variety. I may follow it up with one describing TRUE conservatism as opposed to the FAKE version. You'll have a tough time maintaining your definition of liberalism Big Lin . So according to your definition a liberal can't have anything to do with socialism or marxism? The Irish also call what you call football soccer. The Irish have their own Irish football which I like a lot more than FIFA football or US football.
I'm not really interested in the semantics or letting one person's opinion define what real and fake liberals and conservatives are be my strict guideline. Of course you're free to believe these words should only be used in accordance with your understanding and definition of them.
I rather cringe myself when Germans highjack English words like "irritation" change the meaning and make their own verb form of it "irritieren" which they understand as being "confused" and mix it up with the German word "Irreführung", which has nothing really negative about it like irritation has in English. What can I do? The Germans use that and other highjacked English words differently.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 5, 2017 22:45:00 GMT
My Dad is Irish and I have loads of Irish friends and families. Not one of them calls football soccer.
Only those under the sway of American English usage do that!
By the way, Gaelic football was introduced to Ireland by Cromwell's soldiers.
It's NOT an indigenous Irish sport.
I don't believe a Marxist can possibly be a liberal.
A socialist can be but is less likely to be.
The point is that there are certain minimum tests that a liberal must pass.
One is that they must believe in the maximum possible amount of individual liberty.
If they don't do that then they are not a liberal.
A conservative must as a minimum dislike change and want to preserve tradition.
That makes them instinctively less tolerant than liberals and more inclined to restrict freedom.
Socialists put more emphasis on economic issues than political ones so are willing to trade political liberty for economic benefits.
That is the bottom line and what divides liberals from conservatives and socialists.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Apr 6, 2017 1:15:20 GMT
Big Lin I agree with you that Marxists have highjacked the word liberal just as Jingoists have highjacked the words Nationalist + Patriot. I think of liberal as having something to do with a life style and in that sense I score as liberal in many things.
There is so much "Orwellian Double Think", "role models" and idols that have absolutely nothing to do with the peaceful intentions leftists + liberals claim to have and of course the fake nationalists have made it difficult for me to get my views across so I tend to avoid these words + labels, but people communicate with these highjacked words.
I honestly don't know where to start so I'll just fire a salvo at Che Guevara, who leftists call a liberator and freedom fighter. What a farce! Digging up the truth is a major archeological undertaking.
|
|