(Untitled)
There is an undercurrent in our nation right now that we should do something to prevent people from "provoking" the Muslims by engaging in behavior or speech that is critical or disrespectfal of Islam. The argument is "It's rude anyway, I certainly wouldn't want to make a movie like The Innocence of Muslims or burn a Koran, so why should we face
( Read more... )
This march toward supposed utopianism is ideological and global.
It is more serious now because we now have a president and Democrat Party devoted not to protecting American sovereignty and being a world leader but establishing an ideal world state with "democratic" ideals meaning global "mob rule".
It is anti-capitalistic, anti-Judeo-Christian, anti-inalienable rights, anti-limited government, anti-free speech ... in effect it is for total control.
It is also gutless in that the enemy of their enemy is their friend and stupid because they don't realize they after their "enemies" are subjugated, silenced or eliminated that THEY are next.
But before them the sincere moderate peace-lovers who think by being "nice" everything will be okay.
And why are they all deluded? Because most everyone fails to understand is that the radical Islamist does not hate "the West" for it's values/morals/policies but because they do not SUBMIT to the authority of the Koran and Sharia Law. FREEDOM in all other forms is alien to their ideology and contrary to the dictates of their religion.
And it all turns on "freedom of speech" ... which shows you how insane the left is and how far classical liberalism has sunk ... in that their basic tenet must be suspended or eliminated to advance their agenda ...
By any means necessary.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I simply asked for a clarification.
It's logical to question someone who quotes Mussolini, the father of fascism, with no accompanying commentary, and ask to explain the context, as well as where he/she is coming from.
But thanks.
Reply
Reply
It was pretty clearly a rephrasing of what you took several paragraphs to say, in the form of a famous quote.
The lack of commentary also let it stand starkly in all its horrific "glory."
Reply
In the case of often-Leftist groups whom the Muslims especially hate, such as GLBT, Jews and Atheists, they are immediately next, as in being subjected to physical attack as soon as the Muslims get recognized enclaves.
Reply
The Marxist elite believe they'll eventually beat the silly backwards religious people, but for now they're a useful tool.
their basic tenet must be suspended
Yes and no. Their only true basic tenet is the quest for power. The leftist religion happily contradicts itself whenever anything it previously used becomes counterproductive to an increase in power.
Reply
By "basic tenet" I refer to liberalism in it's purest form which in classical theory claims to be tolerant and in support of individual freedom and especially free speech.
What you are referring to is the goal, not a tenet, of the corrupted liberal ideology which has been hijacked by the radical left.
They now only give "lip service" to freedoms, deny there are such things as "inalienable rights" (except to the right to health care, abortions, condoms, etc.) and are consumed with the lust for power in order to control the masses and determine how other people live.
Reply
Reply
It means debatable. Questionable. Disputable.
I think you mean irrelevant, as do so many people who use the word "moot" incorrectly.
But it's not irrelevant because liberals mostly "claim" to be what classical liberalism was about, and it's appropriate to demonstrate that they are not, and have indeed, as you have said, moved away from liberal principles in favor of an authoritarian, radical, left wing, statist ideology.
Reply
Reply
adjective
1.
open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2.
of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3.
Chiefly Law . not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Moot
What "liberalism in its purest form" might be based on classic theory, when by Liberal we're talking about today's liberals and what they actually do, is academic space-filler.
Reply
But if we are going to deal with its present usage instead of its historical definition, "theoretical" and "deprived of significance" is pretty much it.
Merriam-Webster usage of the word "moot" as an adjective:
* The court ruled that the issue is now moot because the people involved in the dispute have died.
* I think they were wrong, but the point is moot. Their decision has been made and it can't be changed now.
I've got another word to define:
Pedant.
Reply
Which has nothing to do with the Liberalism of which we speak here. "Progressives", another Orwellian label, stole and corrupted the word, as is common.
I know what a classical liberal is. These people have nothing to do with it. Same wolf, new fur.
What you are referring to is the goal, not a tenet
Oh good, pedantry. Leftism, whatever the label they use at the time, always believes that the masses must be ruled by a small elite. Intellectual leftists know this. Most of the sheep advocate that goal but may not realize it's a basic tenet.
Now we could go off into a long conversation about how the left/right framework itself is actually inadequate to properly discuss the overall issue but my balls itch.
They now only give "lip service" to freedoms, deny there are such things as "inalienable rights" (except to the right to health care, abortions, condoms, etc.) and are consumed with the lust for power in order to control the masses and determine how other people live.
I disagree. This was always the case. Whatever cause they adopted and spun into a supposed classical liberal argument was just for the purpose of gaining power over the populace.
Reply
Leave a comment