INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: TheoK on December 04, 2008, 11:02:59 AM
-
I have always wondered this. "Liber" is Latin and means "free". Thus "liberal" implicates that a person would be freedom-loving. However, I have never found this to be the case.
In the film "Der blaue Engel" from 1930, the colleagues of the Professor give the singer Lola a brief and cynical lesson in politics. One of the statements is "The Peoples' Party is against the people". The Peoples' Party in Gemany in 1930 was a so called liberal party, just like the Swedish "liberal" party, which actually calls itself "Peoples' Party the Liberals".
Even with the knowledge that European "liberal" parties claim to be socialliberal to a much greater extent than in the USA, I still see little or no freedom connected with the term.
Checklist; are the "liberals" for:
* liberal gunlaws? No. If they have an opinon about it, it is for harsher gun laws.
* liberal drug laws? Not in Europe at least and not to any greater extent in the USA either.
* lower taxes? Not considerably, except, maybe, for those who already have low taxes.
* war against dictatorships? No.
So what are the "liberals" for? Free immigration, that is, as long as they think that a majority wants that. When the Swedish "liberal" party to their surprise discovered that a majority of the people did not want every towelhead on the planet to move to Sweden, they demanded tests for immigrants on knowledge of the Swedish language.
They also voted for the so called FRA law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRA_lawFRA law) on the 18th of june this year.
That's the "liberal" view on freedom.
-
Freedom allows voting against guns and drugs too, you know. Freedom allows everything, even what you hate.
In essence: Freedom is bullshit. :zoinks:
-
As far as I know most countries on Earth haven't let their citizens vote for or against guns or drugs; Brazil is an exception. The people voted against a gun ban and the government accepted the will of the people.
-
Would I be considered a liberal because I am a member of the ACLU ( http://www.aclu.org/ ) an organization usually associated with them? I consider myself independent of these labels
-
My whole family is liberal but my parents beleive in capital punishment. Sometimes my mother acts like she doesn't beleive in it.
They're not 100% liberal. It's impossible.
-
Would I be considered a liberal because I am a member of the ACLU ( http://www.aclu.org/ ) an organization usually associated with them? I consider myself independent of these labels
They look a hell of a more liberal (for real) than the European liberals, except for the death penalty, of course. Though you can ask if decades in prison actually is more human than execution. I'd say "no" to that.
-
Liberal is a term that's been corrupted to the point where it's lost all resemblance to it's classical meaning. Originally, the liberal ideal was a laissez faire economy with a night watchman government that served only to prevent a group from seizing power and depriving people of their freedoms, but the popular usage of 'liberal' has morphed into describing populist and socialist ideologies.
-
J.S. Mill rotates in his grave. :'(
-
Would I be considered a liberal because I am a member of the ACLU ( http://www.aclu.org/ ) an organization usually associated with them? I consider myself independent of these labels
They look a hell of a more liberal (for real) than the European liberals, except for the death penalty, of course. Though you can ask if decades in prison actually is more human than execution. I'd say "no" to that.
That's one reason I didn't like the death penalty >:D
-
How is being for the death penalty against being "liberal"? Hell, even becoming a bible bashing moron is liberal. :zoinks:
-
J.S. Mill rotates in his grave. :'(
J.S Mill is now well out of his time - get your hands on the liberty reader if you want some good stuff to read. Even better - look up G.A. Cohen's stuff.
-
whiny, unproductive,sniveling parasites who think they are enointed to tell everyone else in the country how to live their lives and spend their hard earned money.
pretty much sums up the modern version of a liberal
-
A visual aid to help understand the contents of the liberal cranium.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3384/3327467168_a8c822b124_o.jpg)
-
:plus:
-
You might be a liberal if.....
You think that consenting adults can engage freely in every activity except capitalism.
If you think the answer to ANY crime, infraction, or injustice is counseling.
If you use the words "right wing extremist" at least four times in any given day.
You live in constant fear that someone, somewhere, is making a profit.
Only the third is true of me, LOL, but I tend to call people Nazis and rednecks more often.
I used to consider myself a liberal, but the more my life began to suck, the more I'm becoming liberal-in-name-only. I mean, thinking logically here, if my mum kicks me out of the house, which is likely to happen at some point, I might end up living on the streets having to do some pretty unliberal stuff. Ergo, I might thank freer gun laws at some point, no matter how long I believed that guns should be banned altogether. So I guess it's true that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.
Also, the apocalypse could well by nigh (I don't mean the rock. The government KNOWS something is coming, and they ain't letting on), and in such a scenario, I want to be armed against whatever will be threatening the survivors. (I've seen too many movies, LOL.)
-
You might be a liberal if.....
You think that consenting adults can engage freely in every activity except capitalism.
If you think the answer to ANY crime, infraction, or injustice is counseling.
If you use the words "right wing extremist" at least four times in any given day.
You live in constant fear that someone, somewhere, is making a profit.
Only the third is true of me, LOL, but I tend to call people Nazis and rednecks more often.
I used to consider myself a liberal, but the more my life began to suck, the more I'm becoming liberal-in-name-only. I mean, thinking logically here, if my mum kicks me out of the house, which is likely to happen at some point, I might end up living on the streets having to do some pretty unliberal stuff. Ergo, I might thank freer gun laws at some point, no matter how long I believed that guns should be banned altogether. So I guess it's true that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.
Also, the apocalypse could well by nigh (I don't mean the rock. The government KNOWS something is coming, and they ain't letting on), and in such a scenario, I want to be armed against whatever will be threatening the survivors. (I've seen too many movies, LOL.)
In what way do you think that the philosophy of liberalism conflicts with the private ownership of firearms? What would this 'unliberal stuff' be that you'd do while living on the streets, and what would make it 'unliberal'?
-
Real liberalism would of course be pro firearms. Individual freedom is impossible without any chance of physical defense against presumtive oppressors (i.e. the police and the military).
-
Real liberalism would of course be pro firearms. Individual freedom is impossible without any chance of physical defense against presumtive oppressors (i.e. the police and the military).
One word: bullshit.
-
Two words: passive-aggressive.
-
Real liberalism would of course be pro firearms. Individual freedom is impossible without any chance of physical defense against presumtive oppressors (i.e. the police and the military).
I think your thinking libertarianism
-
Real liberalism would of course be pro firearms. Individual freedom is impossible without any chance of physical defense against presumtive oppressors (i.e. the police and the military).
I think your thinking libertarianism
Yes, in modern terms, since "liberal" is a term that has been perverted by cowards and hypocrites.
-
Two words: passive-aggressive.
One and a half, at most, since you're using a hyphen. Semantically speaking, "passive-aggressive" should be regarded as one word.
Your attempts at perverting the meaning of the word "liberal" is a separate discussion, however, and one that I have no interest in pursuing since your basic premise includes the use of force to "be free".
-
The only reason that you need force to be free is that there are oppressors, "governments", "states", etc, that have decided to rule over you without your consent. I'd never dream of using force if it weren't for the oppression. I'm not a violent nature except when someone treds on my rights, which these cowards do all the time. They have no original mandate, and thus their power is nothing but criminal. There isn't and never was such a thing as a "social contract", just oppression, nowadays camouflaged as "democracy". But the fraud is as great as when the kings claimed being God's deputies on Earth. They have no original mandate to rule over the people.
-
People YOU see as oppressors.
-
Oh, it isn't oppression to force your will on people without their consent. ::)
-
Hypocrite. Why is it OK when you do it, then?
-
???
-
i love lit. he's a fascist nazi and against some of my beliefs, but i find him endearing. admit, odeon. you like him too.
-
???
Details of which should probably be kept out of a public message board.
-
i love lit. he's a fascist nazi and against some of my beliefs, but i find him endearing. admit, odeon. you like him too.
He's a bigoted prick with delusions of adequacy. What's there not to like?
-
Liberal is what anybody wasn't to be in the end I believe that.
This is how I see it though.
It is up to the individual decide what is right or wrong for Him or Her.
The same goes for the Conservative too.
For really nobody is right or wrong at All.
It is just a matter of views in the end.
Nothing more than that.
-
There was a man here in town who complained against the building of a new motorway through his property. He appealed totally legally and peacefully and just stood up for his right, as the law allows him. He lost in all courts. The day before he had to leave his home, the cops came and did a house search and took his guns. He got them back later but they had no right to take them, since he hadn't broken the law.
There is another man, who is a member of the "Swedish Resistance Movement". He has a totally clean record and has been a responsible gun owner for 18 years. The cops came and took his guns because some high-up pig decided he wasn't "suitable" to own guns. The court agreed with the pig. Now he has appealed but has no greater hope that the other court will change the decision.
That's how gun laws work. To oppress the people. If you're not politically correct or even if you just act perfectly in accordance with the law, when you're not satisfied with a decision from the authorities, they can take your guns. Without gun laws the oppressors hadn't even known that these people had guns in the first place.
In my opinion both these people had been in their total right to shoot the pigs, since they committed a criminal act. Thanks to the gun law they never had a chance. Thanks to the gun laws these worthless pieces of shit, who aren't ashamed of saying that they represent the people, can do whatever they want to us.
-
Did he have permits for the guns? As always, your stories are filtered selectively. Usually, when digging a bit, a different story emerges from yours. And seriously, do you expect the police to give you the benefit of a doubt when you constantly refer to them as "pigs"?
-
Yes, idiot, both of them had their guns perfectly legally. That's why it's so upsettting, and anyone carrying out such an order is a bloody pig. If the Swedes weren't that cowardly, but brave like the Czechs, that wouldn't be a problem, becuase then everybody could get an illegal gun and the pigs would get a very naughty suprise - and their rightful payment - the next time they committed a crime against the people.
-
Avväpning pågår (http://www.patriot.nu/artikel.asp?artikelID=1255)
This man lost all his guns for being a Nazi, not for being a criminal. You can even listen to his phone call with the pig who made the decision.
-
Not only do the "state" and "police" not have any legitimacy to begin with, since the state was founded unilaterally; they even break their own "laws" without shame.
-
It's very interesting that the "liberal" hates me more than he loves freedom, becuase he's 200% aware of that what I say about the lack of legitimacy of the state is true.
-
A visual aid to help understand the contents of the liberal cranium.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3384/3327467168_a8c822b124_o.jpg)
:plus: :lol:
-
That's, unfortunately, the most common design of a European brain. It's not even a joke or an over-exaggeration, alas.
-
It's very interesting that the "liberal" hates me more than he loves freedom, becuase he's 200% aware of that what I say about the lack of legitimacy of the state is true.
You're wrong if you're referring to me. I don't agree with you. I think it's a sensible thing to do to take away guns from the Nazi fuckwits that pollute Sweden with their bigoted nonsense.
You're obviously imagining things.
-
That's, unfortunately, the most common design of a European brain. It's not even a joke or an over-exaggeration, alas.
Grow a brain and you'll be in a position to discuss the subject.
-
It's very interesting that the "liberal" hates me more than he loves freedom, becuase he's 200% aware of that what I say about the lack of legitimacy of the state is true.
You're wrong if you're referring to me. I don't agree with you. I think it's a sensible thing to do to take away guns from the Nazi fuckwits that pollute Sweden with their bigoted nonsense.
You're obviously imagining things.
He hadn't broken any laws. Do they disarm commies as well? Was the man who didn't want a motorway through his garden also a Nazi? Or do you think it's right to treat people like that when they dare to use the few legal rights they have in this joke of a country?
-
That's, unfortunately, the most common design of a European brain. It's not even a joke or an over-exaggeration, alas.
Grow a brain and you'll be in a position to discuss the subject.
You have one and switch it off when reality becomes uncomfortable.
-
That's, unfortunately, the most common design of a European brain. It's not even a joke or an over-exaggeration, alas.
Grow a brain and you'll be in a position to discuss the subject.
You have one and switch it off when reality becomes uncomfortable.
No, I simply disagree with your delusions.
-
It's very interesting that the "liberal" hates me more than he loves freedom, becuase he's 200% aware of that what I say about the lack of legitimacy of the state is true.
You're wrong if you're referring to me. I don't agree with you. I think it's a sensible thing to do to take away guns from the Nazi fuckwits that pollute Sweden with their bigoted nonsense.
You're obviously imagining things.
He hadn't broken any laws. Do they disarm commies as well? Was the man who didn't want a motorway through his garden also a Nazi? Or do you think it's right to treat people like that when they dare to use the few legal rights they have in this joke of a country?
If I had my way I'd lock in the Nazis, too.
-
How liberal of you.
-
You're the one who's always calling me a liberal, not me. :hahaha:
-
You voted for the "liberals"; it said so in your old blog.
-
not all liberals are like that. i'm liberal and i don't like PC. i want freedom. liberal means free...al.
-
not all liberals are like that. i'm liberal and i don't like PC. i want freedom. liberal means free...al.
But you're a real liberal, MillaBobillaPilla. ;)
-
yes :P so are you
-
:agreed: :plus:
-
:zoinks:
-
You voted for the "liberals"; it said so in your old blog.
So? You're still the one to call me liberal, not me.
-
So the party, that you claimed that you voted for, doesn't call themselves the liberals? You're not a socialist, even if I thought you were at first for all your anti-freedom views.
-
Update: I now see that you call them idiots, so you probably didn't vote for them. No, but you're certainly not a friend of freedom: "When the Foreign Department for once did something good and got the Sweden Democrats' homepage shut down for publishing the Muhammed caricatures..." Are you a communist, or what?
-
"...Insulting millions of believing Muslims...". They insult us by coming to Europe and North America and demanding that we show respect for them and their moon god religion...
The Danes did the right thing, of course, and if the Swedish police weren't such pigs, they'd get Lars Vilks a self defense license for a gun, which actually is legally possible in situations like the ones he is in for fighting for freedom of speech.
-
So the party, that you claimed that you voted for, doesn't call themselves the liberals? You're not a socialist, even if I thought you were at first for all your anti-freedom views.
My views are actually FOR freedom. I let you post here, don't I? QED
Guns, no matter how you choose to sugarcoat the issue, are about enforcing. The very idea is to force your opponent to change a behaviour. Some may call it "defending your personal freedoms" or some such thing, but this fact remains. How you can equate that with "freedom" is beyond me.
Yes, I've voted for the liberals but that was a very long time ago. I've also voted for others (never the socialists or communists, though, because their basic ideals are against freedoms I take for granted; they sugarcoat their party lines as much as you sugarcoat your gun ideals). What my voting record proves is that I agree with some of the ideas of many of our political parties. It also shows that my views do not remain static, very much unlike yours.
I believe in many of their basic ideals but over time, most political parties here have betrayed some of these ideals, causing me to vote for someone else. The liberals (and I'm referring to the political party, not the concept), for example, have many not-so-liberal ideas these days, and so they didn't get my vote this time around.
If you'd bothered reading more, you would have known this.
-
Update: I now see that you call them idiots, so you probably didn't vote for them. No, but you're certainly not a friend of freedom: "When the Foreign Department for once did something good and got the Sweden Democrats' homepage shut down for publishing the Muhammed caricatures..." Are you a communist, or what?
You read the post but still miss my point?
-
BTW, I'm amused by your insistence to find a suitable political label for me.
-
BTW, I'm amused by your insistence to find a suitable political label for me.
You hate freedom of speech and the right to defend yourself with firearms, and you think that Muslims deserve respect. That makes you a leftist in my book, whatever you might label yourself as.
-
Freedom of speech doesn't have anything to do with gun laws. You're confused, as always.
My basic opinion is that all humans are equal and they all deserve respect, regardless of race, religion, or political views. Some of them forfeit this (you are a case in point) by not respecting others or actively working against these basic freedoms (race, religion, political views, etc), but I'm sure you get my basic idea (if you don't, have someone else explain it to you because I don't suffer fools gladly).
Having said that, I must admit that I have trouble taking you seriously enough to label you anything but just another nutcase. Your track record here and in real life pretty much proves my point.
-
You are against free guns. That's a fact. You also thought it was good when they shut SD's homepage down. That's a fact too. So I don't confuse anything.
Religious people deserve nothing but being ridiculed for their irrational believes, especially when they demand to have any influence over a civilized Western society.
-
Poor little Nazi. Bad, bad Swedish authorities refuse to let you play with guns. Poor you.
I really, really think you should be among the last to use the word "irrational". Or "civilised".
-
The true reason for making up gun laws is this: you know as a politician deep inside that your agenda is unjustful and that an otherwise law-abiding person might get the idea of killing you. They make gun laws for saving their own skin. Because 95% of all people who care to get a gun (at least a pistol) legally here are idiots that'd obey any idiotic command whatsoever.
In Vermont and Alaska they know that they don't have to fear the people, and thus they let people arm themselves like free men.
-
Er, no. At the hands of someone like you or some other clueless wannabe Nazi, a gun would be very dangerous. As for Vermont, you need to consider not only Vermont but also how its gun laws affect other states.
But never mind that. Focus on growing that brain first.
-
Er, no. At the hands of someone like you or some other clueless wannabe Nazi, a gun would be very dangerous. As for Vermont, you need to consider not only Vermont but also how its gun laws affect other states.
It doesn't. You're not allowed to buy guns in Vermont if you're from another state. Check up the laws before you speak.
And Vermont is more like most of Sweden than NYC, for instance. That speaks good for free guns.
-
Er, no. At the hands of someone like you or some other clueless wannabe Nazi, a gun would be very dangerous. As for Vermont, you need to consider not only Vermont but also how its gun laws affect other states.
It doesn't. You're not allowed to buy guns in Vermont if you're from another state. Check up the laws before you speak.
And Vermont is more like most of Sweden than NYC, for instance. That speaks good for free guns.
The funny thing about stupid people, is that they usually never figure out that they are stupid, even if they been told. Repeatedly.
-
You're not stupid because someone who can't argue in an honest way calls you stupid.
-
Er, no. At the hands of someone like you or some other clueless wannabe Nazi, a gun would be very dangerous. As for Vermont, you need to consider not only Vermont but also how its gun laws affect other states.
It doesn't. You're not allowed to buy guns in Vermont if you're from another state. Check up the laws before you speak.
And Vermont is more like most of Sweden than NYC, for instance. That speaks good for free guns.
Are you really this naive or are you just pretending?
-
You're not stupid because someone who can't argue in an honest way calls you stupid.
So true. You're stupid because of your inability to understand.
-
Er, no. At the hands of someone like you or some other clueless wannabe Nazi, a gun would be very dangerous. As for Vermont, you need to consider not only Vermont but also how its gun laws affect other states.
It doesn't. You're not allowed to buy guns in Vermont if you're from another state. Check up the laws before you speak.
And Vermont is more like most of Sweden than NYC, for instance. That speaks good for free guns.
Are you really this naive or are you just pretending?
Yes, you can of course take a gun from Vermont to a state or city where guns are banned or heavily restricted. That's why the cowards in the EU forced Switzerland to change its unique gun laws under the threat of economic sanctions.
But fact remains: Vermont is more like Sweden in most respects than what NYC is, so it would work pretty good to adapt their gun law here.
-
Being against gun laws isn't a contradiction to freedom, you have the freedom to choose whether to be against them or not at the first place.
-
Being against gun laws isn't a contradiction to freedom, you have the freedom to choose whether to be against them or not at the first place.
If you don't want the people to have any chance to fight the state, you're for gun laws. How is that freedom-loving? The people in Waco couldn't win, but thanks to the 2nd Amendment they could at least kill tens of federal pigs and died like free men themselves. In Europe they'd be caught and imprisoned or slaughtered with no losses among the pigs.
And yes, the state committed a crime in Waco, not the Koresh people.
-
Being against gun laws isn't a contradiction to freedom, you have the freedom to choose whether to be against them or not at the first place.
If you don't want the people to have any chance to fight the state, you're for gun laws. How is that freedom-loving? The people in Waco couldn't win, but thanks to the 2nd Amendment they could at least kill tens of federal pigs and died like free men themselves. In Europe they'd be caught and imprisoned or slaughtered with no losses among the pigs.
And yes, the state committed a crime in Waco, not the Koresh people.
You are still an idiot.
-
You still have nothing to say.
-
You still have nothing to say.
Is that your statement? Because its incorrect. I've already had my say. You're an idiot with internet access. One of the worse kinds.
-
:yawn:
-
Being against gun laws isn't a contradiction to freedom, you have the freedom to choose whether to be against them or not at the first place.
Finally someone who gets it.
-
No. You're not really freedom-loving if you're pro banning anything, especially not the only thing that can protect you from naked brute force from the state.
A foreigner said this about the FRA law on a Swedish board: "You Swedes don't love freedom, and thus you will never breathe it." He was right.
-
You know my views on FRA, I believe. As for defining freedom, you're not in the position to do so. Either you accept and support the rights of others around you, regardless of their nationality, race. and political or religious conviction, or you remain a hypocrite.
-
Sure they have their rights, but I don't have to like them as people. And as long as we have a state, they come here on other people's expense, no matter if you're a racist or not.
-
I love guns I even have a shot gun from U.S.S.R. stamped on it came from Canada. :lol:
-
I think came from Russia to begin with. :P
Damned, if I had only known about the license free shotguns in Norway when they were still available.
Well, I'll find out something else.
-
Last night I met a true Liberal politician. He is actually totally candid - was brilliant to listen to (and then go drinking with). Lit I think you would especially love him
http://www.libdems.org.uk/people/lembit-opik
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-534868/My-relationship-oddball-MP-Lembit-Opik-Im-glad-Sian-Lloyd.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/video/2008/may/26/romania.opik
-
And he lets the chicks pay for him. :laugh:
-
And he lets the chicks pay for him. :laugh:
Yeah - which is doubly funny. Though what I like about him is that in front of an audience he is unbelievably candid. "I want to legalise all drugs in Britain" "The only reason I am not president of the Lib Dems is because of the establishment" and so on - tbh the better bits were his anecdotes, but I sure as hell cba to type them up.
-
Ted Kennedy :laugh:
-
Two words: passive-aggressive.
One and a half, at most, since you're using a hyphen. Semantically speaking, "passive-aggressive" should be regarded as one word.
Your attempts at perverting the meaning of the word "liberal" is a separate discussion, however, and one that I have no interest in pursuing since your basic premise includes the use of force to "be free".
We DID have to use force to be free...
-
So, are you free now?
-
Freer than we are, except in Jew York City and a few other places.
-
And he lets the chicks pay for him. :laugh:
Yeah - which is doubly funny. Though what I like about him is that in front of an audience he is unbelievably candid. "I want to legalise all drugs in Britain" "The only reason I am not president of the Lib Dems is because of the establishment" and so on - tbh the better bits were his anecdotes, but I sure as hell cba to type them up.
he has no chance if he wants to legalize all drugs.
-
I think came from Russia to begin with. :P
Damned, if I had only known about the license free shotguns in Norway when they were still available.
Well, I'll find out something else.
No from U.S.S.R. :lol: