|
Aren't YOU?
Don't you believe that people essentially should be left alone to get on with their lives however they see fit with as little interference from the Government as possible?
Don't you think that legislation that discriminates unfairly and without logical basis should be removed from the statute books?
Don't you think that authoritarianism generally leads to stupid mistakes, is an impediment to progress because nobody pays attention to what's going on in the ground level, excludes the "man on the spot" is pretty much just a symptom of electing *obnoxious* people as representatives and pretty much never acheives anything other than to convince one or two self-aggrandisers that they're more important than they really are?
When you sling the word "liberal" around as some sort of dirty word...
What do you *mean*? What does the word *mean* to you? Cos this whole liberal hating thing is getting DUMB. I don't think you guys even know what YOU think a liberal is.
It can't have escaped your attention that it's derived from the word "liberty", can it?
Liberals have no interest in getting rid of Christianity. Christianity can do whatever it likes so long is it doesn't interfere with the rest of us. There will be no legislation particularly pertaining to Christianity in a liberal state. It's a religion, not a crime or a political philosophy. Similarly, there will be no propping up of Christianity as any kind of "moral" anything. We judge people by their actions, not what they claim to be their belief system.
Liberals have no interest in oppressing heterosexuals. They can marry as much as they like. Why should *we* care? And why do you think that homosexuals also wanting to be married will *weaken* the institution? Why would homosexuals want to partake of an institution that is "weak"? And what do you mean "weak", anyway? Do you see all marriages as some sort of giant, fragile collective Christian project? I beg your pardon, marriage is far, far older than Christianity. Christianity does not "own" marriage. Actually, nobody "owns" marriage. Marriage is between the individuals who marry. It's not really got anything to do with anyone else, except where the state confers benefits on the partakers of the ceremony. Is your marriage so precarious that the idea of two men porking in the house next door will smash your marriage? Is your husband so sensitive to homosexuality that the mere smell of it will drive him into a frenzy of man-on-man lust? Somewhat doubtful.
Liberals have no interest in letting dangerous criminals walk free on the streets. Liberals want proper legal safeguards against innocent people being imprisoned by mistake.
That last one is quite important and really should be said again.
Liberals have no interest in letting dangerous criminals walk free on the streets. Liberals want proper legal safeguards against innocent people being imprisoned by mistake.
Now, some of you lurkers still don't get that one, so I'll say it again.
Liberals have no interest in letting dangerous criminals walk free on the streets. Liberals want proper legal safeguards against innocent people being imprisoned by mistake.
And now you're feeling all pissed off and defensive and expect to be stroked, and will probably get antsy if I don't come over all tolerant about your disgusting prejudices, cos you twats think tolerance applies to everybody, nah, honey, that's not liberalism, that's dweebishness, tolerance should be practiced by YOU because you are BIGOTED about people, in other words you make stupid decisions about people based on flimsy information that shouldn't really give you any clue at all about what their intentions or values are, like their skin colour, or the sexual orientation, or their gender, or their nationality, or anything at all so long as it's the opposite of the category YOU belong in, I don't do things like that, I judge people based on what they SAY and DO, which is what judgment is FOR, tolerance is required of bigots because bigotry is wrong, tolerance is not required of those who can see that stupid is as stupid does. Where is the the paragraph liberal manifesto that says we should all tolerate bigotry? There isn't one. "Ah've got as much right to be a bigot as yew have to be black!" No, you don't. If you spend any time at all analyzing that idea it falls completely to pieces. It contradicts itself. It results in a paradox. What this means, when you find a paradox in your argument, is that there's something wrong with your initial statement (This way of establishing consistency in your thought processes is called logic). I don't have to tolerate people who sneeringly pout and say: "you're just a LIBERAL!" Why should I? What's in it for me? But I digress. You still don't get the previous paragraph, so I'll say it again.
Liberals have no interest in letting dangerous criminals walk free on the streets. Liberals want proper legal safeguards against innocent people being imprisoned by mistake.
And you still don't get it, do you? Why not? Probably because you believe large numbers of criminals are walking free because they've found ways using the safeguards to get away with whatever they're doing. Gasp! Rapists, rap artists and bears! Oh My! I don't think that's a very good thing either, actually, but frankly, I think the idea of locking an innocent up for 30 odd years by accident (or design) is worse. Why? Because I value freedom over personal safety. Yes! Life isn't safe, dude. That's just the way it is. Freedom is all we have, really, and I'm not throwing it away to satisfy your cravings for cheap burgers and the Sci-Fi Channel.
You want the rapists and murders under lock and key? Me too. Tell you what, let's lock up the ACTUAL rapists and murderers instead of just running round in circles shouting "liberals want rapists and murderers to walk the streets!" which is just a distraction. Cos, if we use the safeguards make sure we're locking up the ACTUAL rapists and murders, the benefit is twofold, firstly no innocent people get locked up and secondly no-one gets raped or murdered! Ta-da! Case closed. See, if you bypass the safeguards, quite often the POLICE will arrest the wrong person (and may well not care at all) and get them convicted just to get a conviction. Baaaaaad. Happens all the time in countries with no safeguards against abuse of legal process. Look at China, republican dude. You know, that oppressive communist nation we all hate so much because of its human rights record? No safeguards = 1. Innocent person in jail. + 2. Original rapist/murder WALKING FREE. See? The safeguards are there TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RAPISTS AND MURDERERS GET LOCKED UP! Betcha didn't think of that, eh? See, if you SEPARATE the guilty from the innocent using whatever information is to hand, instead of LABELLING convenient minority categories as "likely to be guilty" (which, mind you, is no easy task for you) you maximize the benefits for all concerned (except the actual rapists, which makes me wonder about some of you people).
Conclusion: Liberals do not want to throw open the jails and let all the criminals out, you just made that up in your little republican brain.
Of course, there ARE all those naughty liberals who want to legalize drugs... GASP! DRUGS! THAT one needs a thread on its own, lets just say that your attitude to drugs is Very Strange.
Liberals have no interest in persecuting the right. The liberal agenda is about leaving people alone (unless they're screwing everything up so incredibly badly that they're affecting everyone around them adversely, like George, in which case it's time for some intoleratin').
So, how come you're not a liberal, dude?
Cos, what we believe
is what EVERYBODY BELIEVES...
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
