Media trying to make Nationalism a racist idea

a reply to: luthier

I have nuanced opinions and I am tired of being gathered into a party before country.

Amen to that

I also am tired of being treated like a monolith instead of an individual but Sadly most of us are putting ourselves in these boxes/categories instead of trying to stand out as an individual with individual ideas and beliefs. I too have a mix of conservative, liberal, libertarian ideals that no party accurately encompasses, but I have truly done a piss poor job of expressing those ideals or supporting others with those ideals

I want to change that, about myself if nothing else

I think the worst part of tribalism is not being able to recognize it for what it really is. It is pretty astonishing how many excuses we can come up with though, when it fits our own agenda/pre-conceived beliefs

I have Democrat friends. We don't have deep discussions by making fun of each other in mean spirits, we have meaningful discussions when we are open to the concept we are both good people and should be considerate and listen to each others opinions. This is how a solution that is more inclusive is made.

We can't keep electing presidents to do the work of Congress. AMD we can't keep electing people to get personal ideas passed. We live in a country 9f diverse opinions and they are all valid when lawful and when addressed locally.

Agreed We've got to start holding politicians accountable again, forcing them to address the tough questions instead of giving our support to those who we think will advance our own agenda instead of who will do the best job for our country. And all of our country too, not just the party in power or the majority group

And when they trample on the separation of powers or try to marginalize an entire branch of government, we need to do a better job standing up to them instead of dividing down party lines. And this goes for Trump and any future President, or congress/the judiciary for that matter. We can do a much better job. And hopefully re-learn how to interact with one another in a respectful and dignified way without resorting to insults and personal attacks. I miss the old days of debate and friendly (or at least respectful) disagreement

a reply to: JBurns



Being nice is the new edgy thing to do.

States rights would help release some short term pressure. Focussing on our communities and getting Washington out of them for a little bit. The us is not unlike the EU. We just don't have a complete language change.

The president can't fix our problems. Trade, immigration, economy etc are the responsibility of us through our representatives in congress. They no longer care at all what we want. They care only for the parties. 42 percent of registered voters are independent. Who represents them? That is the vast majority. This ping pong game should stop. And we should do it with the peaceful revolution our founders gave us.

Vote them out. Incombants of any party who are festering in multiple terms of nothing to show.

a reply to: agenda51
The Roots of Prejudice: Awake!—2004

...a history of enmity between two groups can reinforce prejudice.

The Cultivation of Ignorance

The heart of a toddler does not harbor prejudice. On the contrary, researchers note that a child will often readily play with a child of a different race. By the age of 10 or 11, however, he may reject people of another tribe, race, or religion. During his formative years, he acquires a collection of viewpoints that may last a lifetime.

How are these lessons learned? A child picks up negative attitudes​—both spoken and unspoken—​first from his parents and then from his friends or teachers. Later the neighbors, newspaper, radio, or television might further influence him. Although he likely knows little or nothing about the groups he dislikes, by the time he becomes an adult, he has concluded that they are inferior and untrustworthy. He may even hate them.

With increased travel and commerce, contact between different cultures and ethnic groups has grown in many countries. Nevertheless, the person who has developed a strong prejudice usually clings to his preconceived notions. He may insist on stereotyping thousands or even millions of people, assuming that they all share certain bad qualities. Any negative experience, even if it involves just one person from that group, serves to reinforce his prejudice. Positive experiences, on the other hand, are usually disregarded as exceptions to the rule.

Breaking Free

Although most people condemn prejudice in principle, few escape its clutches. In fact, many who are deeply prejudiced would insist that they are not. Others say it does not matter, especially if people keep their prejudices to themselves. Yet, prejudice does matter because it hurts people and divides them. If prejudice is the child of ignorance, hatred is frequently its grandchild. Author Charles Caleb Colton (1780?-1832) pointed out: “We hate some persons because we do not know them; and we will not know them because we hate them.” Nevertheless, if prejudice can be learned, it can also be unlearned. How?

Next page: The End of Prejudice: Awake!—2004

“Drive out prejudices through the door, and they will return through the window.”​—Frederick the Great, King of Prussia.

“Hundreds of millions of human beings continue to suffer today from racism, discrimination, xenophobia and exclusion,” explains Koichiro Matsuura, director general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). “Such dehumanising practices, fed by ignorance and prejudice, have triggered internal strife in many countries and brought immense human suffering.”

If you have never been a victim of prejudice, you might find it hard to comprehend how traumatic it is. “Some live with it in silence. Others return prejudice with more prejudice,” observes the book Face to Face Against Prejudice.

At one time Christians were prime targets of prejudice. Shortly after Jesus’ death, for example, a wave of cruel persecution was directed against them. (Acts 8:3; 9:1, 2; 26:10, 11) Two centuries later professed Christians faced cruel mistreatment. “If there is a plague,” wrote the third-century writer Tertullian, “the cry is at once, ‘The Christians to the Lions.’”

Starting in the 11th century with the Crusades, however, Jews became the unpopular minority in Europe. When the bubonic plague swept through the Continent, killing about a quarter of the population in just a few years, the Jews were an easy target for blame, since they were already hated by many. “The plague gave this hatred an excuse, and the hatred gave people’s fear of the plague a focus,” writes Jeanette Farrell in her book Invisible Enemies.

Eventually, a Jewish man in the south of France “confessed” under torture that Jews had caused the epidemic by poisoning the wells. Of course, his confession was false, but the information was heralded as truth. Soon entire Jewish communities were slaughtered in Spain, France, and Germany. It seems no one paid attention to the real culprits​—the rats. And few people noticed that Jews died of the plague just like everyone else!

As demonstrated, when a disaster occurs, people often search for someone to blame. When prominent people repeat an accusation against a minority group often enough, it becomes accepted and a prejudice is born. To cite a common example, during economic downturns in Western lands, immigrant workers are frequently blamed for unemployment​—even though they often take jobs that most local people refuse to do.

Is religion a force for tolerance or prejudice?

In his book The Nature of Prejudice, Gordon W. Allport states that “on the average, Church members seem to be more prejudiced than nonmembers.” This is not surprising, for religion has often been the cause of prejudice rather than its remedy. For example, clerics incited anti-Semitism for centuries. According to A History of Christianity, Hitler once remarked: “As for the Jews, I am just carrying on with the same policy which the Catholic church had adopted for 1500 years.”

During the atrocities in the Balkans, Orthodox and Catholic teachings seemed incapable of producing tolerance and respect toward neighbors who professed another religion.

Likewise, in Rwanda, church members slaughtered fellow believers. The National Catholic Reporter pointed out that the fighting there involved “a real and true genocide for which, unfortunately, even Catholics are responsible.”

The Catholic Church itself has recognized its record of intolerance. In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II asked forgiveness for “deviations of the past” at a public Mass in Rome. During the ceremony, “religious intolerance and injustice towards Jews, women, indigenous peoples, immigrants, the poor and the unborn” were specifically mentioned.

Can we recognize tendencies toward prejudice in ourselves? For example, do we draw conclusions as to the character of a person based on his skin color, nationality, ethnic group, or tribe​—even though we do not know that person? Or can we value each person for his or her unique qualities?

In Jesus’ day people who lived in Judea and Galilee generally had “no dealings with Samaritans.” (John 4:9) A saying recorded in the Talmud no doubt expressed the feeling of many Jews: “May I never set eyes on a Samaritan.”

Later, Jesus related a parable of a man who had been set upon by robbers during his journey from Jerusalem to Jericho. Two religious Jewish passersby were not inclined to help the man. A Samaritan, however, stopped and bandaged the man’s wounds. Then he arranged for the man’s care so that he could recover from his injuries. That Samaritan proved himself a real neighbor. (Luke 10:29-37) Jesus’ parable may have helped his listeners to realize that their prejudice blinded them to the good qualities in others.

The motive for fighting prejudice:

Prejudice violates a fundamental principle that Jesus taught: “All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them.” (Matthew 7:12) Prejudice also violates God’s standards of impartiality. The Bible teaches that Jehovah “made out of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth.” (Acts 17:26) All men, therefore, are brothers.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: agenda51

All men, therefore, are brothers.

Would you turn your brother away at the border if he just walked over a 1,000 miles to get there?

Especially if he's coming from this area:

Lol pretty sure the Nazi’s did it first.

originally posted by: whereislogic

“Twenty-five years ago this June,” observes the Catholic Jesuit magazine “America”, “Americans piously inserted the phrase ‘under God’ into the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.” In reflecting on the reason for this move, “America” says that “most who supported the change in wording (and there were few who did not) frankly admitted that the inclusion of God was a political, not a religious, act.” In those days of fervent anti-Communism, notes the article, “the Catholic War Veterans of Wayne County, Mich., resolved that letting God into the Pledge would give ‘additional meaning to the spiritual defense of our nation.’ God . . . was being recalled to active duty.”

The significance of this was expressed by one religious writer of the time who said that, by putting God into the pledge, America was “adopting a God of war who appears as a nationalistic deity directing bombs and bullets into the hearts of our enemies.” Observes “America”: “Quite simply, the nation was afraid of the future, and it tried to meet this fear by having its children parrot in singsong fashion just how good it actually was. The Pledge was to be a spiritual boot [military training] camp for babes.”

Do you want your children to learn about a nationalistic “God of war” or, rather, about the “God of peace” as revealed in the Bible? (Phil. 4:9) “America” draws this conclusion: “The phrase ‘under God’ is the concrete symbol of what was, 25 years ago, and may still be, the established American religion: worship of the state. We ought to drop it.”​—June 9, 1979, pp. 469, 470.

Now this video might make some more sense to some people, pardon the subtly (or slightly?) racist title, not my choice, they do make a good point though (the same point I bolded above):

The Dangers of Patriotism and Nationalism

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Grambler


The Progs have been pulling that stunt for awhile. I proudly call myself a Nationalist! It has nothing to do with the color of a persons skin.

But they think they are slick by putting "White" as a modifier so they can call you a Racist or a Nazi. NPC's are a hoot....

I'm a white nationalist...I have friends who are brown nationalists and black nationalists...Ever person who volunteered to fight in WWII was a nationalist, including my dad...

John Stoessinger, professor of political science said: “I read that wars were caused by nationalism, militarism, alliance systems, economic factors, or by some other bloodless abstraction that I could not understand. . . . I wondered if this could be true. . . . After all, wars were begun by men. Yet this personality [human] dimension was seldom given its due weight in traditional books on war.”

Many theories are offered to explain the causes of war. For example, those who believe in evolution see man only as a higher form of animal life that still retains the aggressive and defensive reflexes of the animal world. They argue that aggression is innate in man, that it is in his genes. Zoologist Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt wrote in The Biology of Peace and War: “Our closest relatives, the great apes, have considerable aggressive potential and are also territorial. . . . This strongly suggests that our human aggressivity may be an ancient primate heritage.”

Konrad Lorenz, Austrian founder of modern ethology (the study of animal behavior) asserts that man has an aggressive drive that is his “most powerfully motivating instinct [that] makes him go to war.”​—On Aggression.

On the other hand, Sue Mansfield, a professor of history, challenges that conclusion, saying: “Though the majority of cultures in historic times have engaged in war, the majority of human beings have not been participants.” The fact that governments have to resort to obligatory conscription into the armed forces would also suggest that aggression and killing are not necessarily viewed with great enthusiasm by people in general, nor can they be seen as reflex reactions. Professor Mansfield adds: “Indeed, the historical record suggests that warfare has usually been a minority experience.”

In recent times that minority has been highly trained and preconditioned. War and killing have also become more impersonal. In contrast with wars of past ages, the specialized minority can kill without actually seeing, let alone knowing, their victims. But if they do not know the enemy, how can people be motivated to fight?

The role of propaganda:

Sometimes neighbors quarrel. But seldom does it lead to bloodshed. In the first place, the law of the land prohibits assault and murder against fellow citizens. But in time of war, that prohibition does not apply to citizens of an opposing country, even though people in general really do not know their “enemies.” All that they know about the enemy is what they have been led to believe by the spoon-feeding of their politically controlled media.

As Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt wrote: “Public opinion is formed by interest groups (politicians, arms manufacturers, the military) that deceive the electorate by giving them false or one-sided information.” In a similar vein, historian H. E. Barnes wrote: “Since the wars of the French Revolution . . . copious and compelling propaganda [has] been continued and greatly increased to protect warfare against popular dissent, opposition, and factual analysis of issues.”

As a consequence, “practically anybody can be persuaded and manipulated in such a way that he will more or less voluntarily enter a situation wherein he must kill and perhaps die.” (War, by Gwynne Dyer) Thus, by reason of their political and economic power, the “elite” can control the media in order to prepare the masses for the bloodbath.

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, leaders of the ruling Nazi elite, were well aware of the importance of mind control and deception of the masses. On August 24, 1939, Hitler explained to a group of high officers his plans for the invasion of Poland: “I shall give a propagandist cause for starting the war. Never mind whether it is plausible or not. . . . In starting and waging a war, it is not Right that matters but Victory.”

Thus it is clear that a motivation has to be generated to make a nation rise up against another. But what are the key elements in generating war fever?

Austrian economist Schumpeter wrote: “The orientation toward war is mainly fostered by the domestic interests of ruling classes but also by the influence of all those who stand to gain individually from a war policy, whether economically or socially.” These ruling classes have been defined as “elites [that] are at all times involved in trying to manipulate other elements of the population, or the public mood itself, so as to perpetuate themselves in power.”​—Why War? by Professors Nelson and Olin.

Every nation has its ruling class, even though that group may be divided into different political factions. However, many observe that the power of the military elite in every nation should not be underestimated. Former U.S. Ambassador John K. Galbraith describes the military establishment as “by far the most powerful of the autonomous processes of government.” He continues: “The power of the military embraces not only the significant sources of power but . . . all the instruments of its enforcement. . . . More than any other exercise of power in our time it is the subject of grave public unease.”

Galbraith illustrates his point by reference to the United States military institution, which has property resources that “far exceed any similar source of power; they embrace not only what is available to the armed services and the civilian military establishment but what flows out to the weapons industries.” A like situation no doubt exists in many other countries.

Sometimes the people are not in favor of a war. On what basis, then, can the rulers most easily persuade the population to support their aims? This was the problem that faced the United States in Vietnam. So, what did the ruling elite do? Galbraith answers: “The Vietnam War produced in the United States one of the most comprehensive efforts in social conditioning [adjusting of public opinion] in modern times. Nothing was spared in the attempt to make the war seem necessary and acceptable to the American public.” And that points to the handiest tool for softening up a nation for war. What is it?

Professor Galbraith again supplies the answer: “Schools in all countries inculcate the principles of patriotism. . . . The conditioning that requires all to rally around the flag is of particular importance in winning subordination to military and foreign policy.” This systematic conditioning prevails in communist countries as it does in Western nations.

Charles Yost, a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service and State Department, expressed it thus: “The primary cause of the insecurity of nations persists, the very attribute on which nations pride themselves most​—their sovereign independence, their ‘sacred egoism,’ their insubordination to any interest broader or higher than their own.” This “sacred egoism” is summed up in divisive nationalism, in the pernicious teaching that any one nation is superior to all others.

Historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “The spirit of nationality is a sour ferment of the new wine of democracy in the old bottles of tribalism.” In Power and Immortality, Dr. Lopez-Reyes wrote: “Sovereignty is a major cause of contemporary war”. The emphasis on nationalism and sovereignty denies the basic concept that we all belong to the same human family, regardless of linguistic or cultural differences. And that denial leads to war. Yet there is one primary factor that most commentators ignore:
He is a liar! (part 1 of 2)

a reply to: Grambler

What I find ironic is how whenever the left tries to relate Nationalist to the Nazis... they always conveniently leave out the Socialist part.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
Prejudice and Discrimination—Getting to the Roots

Prejudice causes people to distort, misinterpret, or even ignore facts that conflict with their predetermined opinions. Prejudice may have its beginnings in seemingly innocent, but misguided, family values, or it may be sown by those who deliberately promote warped views of other races or cultures. Prejudice can also be fostered by nationalism and false religious teachings. And it can be a product of inordinate pride. As you reflect on the following points and on pertinent principles taken from the Bible, why not examine your own attitudes and see if changes are in order?
...
Pride. ...

In the form of inordinate self-esteem or haughtiness, pride can make a person more susceptible to prejudice. For example, pride can cause a person to be prone to feelings of superiority or disdain toward the less educated or the materially poor. It may also make him inclined to believe propaganda that elevates his national or ethnic group. Clever propagandists, such as Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, have deliberately nurtured national and racial pride to rally the support of the masses and to malign those considered to be different or undesirable.

Nationalism​—The “Sacred Egoism” That Divides

“Schools in all countries inculcate the principles of patriotism. . . . The conditioning that requires all to rally around the flag is of particular importance in winning subordination to military and foreign policy.” (Professor Galbraith) This systematic conditioning prevails in communist countries as it does in Western nations.

Charles Yost, a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service and State Department, expressed it thus: “The primary cause of the insecurity of nations persists, the very attribute on which nations pride themselves most​—their sovereign independence, their ‘sacred egoism,’ their insubordination to any interest broader or higher than their own.” This “sacred egoism” is summed up in divisive nationalism, in the pernicious teaching that any one nation is superior to all others.

▪ What does the Bible say? “Everyone that is proud in heart is something detestable to Jehovah.” (Proverbs 16:5) “[Do] nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with lowliness of mind [consider] that the others are superior to you.” (Philippians 2:3)

Yes, for good reason the Bible cautions: “More than all else that is to be guarded, safeguard your heart, for out of it are the sources of life.” (Proverbs 4:23) So view your heart as truly precious, and let nothing corrupt it! Instead, fill it with godly wisdom. Then, and only then, will ‘thinking ability and discernment safeguard you, to deliver you from the bad way, from the person speaking perverse things.’​—Proverbs 2:10-12.

Discernment is “acuteness of judgment.” It is “the power or faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes one thing from another.” A person with discernment perceives subtleties of ideas or things and has good judgment.

Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18) Discernment enables you to discard irrelevant information or misleading facts and distinguish the substance of a matter. But how can you discern when something is misleading?

Put information to the test: Some people today are like sponges; they soak up whatever they come across. It is all too easy to absorb whatever is around us.

But it is far better for each individual personally to choose what he will feed his mind. It is said that we are what we eat, and this can apply to food for both the body and the mind. No matter what you are reading or watching or listening to, test to see whether it has propagandistic overtones or is truthful.

Moreover, if we want to be fair-minded, we must be willing to subject our own opinions to continual testing as we take in new information. We must realize that they are, after all, opinions. Their trustworthiness depends on the validity of our facts, on the quality of our reasoning, and on the standards or values that we choose to apply.

Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! Awake!—2000

“A fool will believe anything.”—PROVERBS 14:15, TODAY’S ENGLISH VERSION.
...
Good educators present all sides of an issue and encourage discussion. Propagandists relentlessly force you to hear their view and discourage discussion. Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.

Be selective: A completely open mind could be likened to a pipe that lets just anything flow through it—even sewage. No one wants a mind contaminated with poison. Solomon, a king and educator in ancient times, warned: “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15) So we need to be selective. We need to scrutinize whatever is presented to us, deciding what to accept and what to reject.

However, we do not want to be so narrow that we refuse to consider facts that can improve our thinking. How can we find the right balance? By adopting a standard with which to measure new information. Here a Christian has a source of great wisdom. He has the Bible as a sure guide for his thinking. On the one hand, his mind is open, that is, receptive to new information. He properly weighs such new information against the Bible standard and fits what is true into his pattern of thinking. On the other hand, his mind sees the danger of information that is entirely inconsistent with his Bible-based values.

Use discernment: ...
...
Ask questions: ...
...
Do not just follow the crowd: ...

a reply to: Grambler

cuz it is

a reply to: DBCowboy

better question is did you get it?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DBCowboy

better question is did you get it?

Did I get what?

The irrational hatred spewed from crazed leftists?

Yeah, I got it.

hey I didnt get it. Can one of the leftest let me here it again LOL.

a reply to: Grambler

The most ironic part is that nationalism had been, and continues to be part of the culture of most countries to this day. Yet the left are trying to make nationalism bad, meanwhile claiming "you don't have anything to worry about socialism, it's just a word."

In other words, the left are trying to make an economic idea, socialism, which has always oppressed people, and destroyed nations into something good, meanwhile making another word, nationalism, which is a neutral word and does not necessarily make any country bad, or oppressive, into something bad...

One final word that sort of sums up my commentary so far in this thread (for now, perhaps). 2 Timothy 3:

But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 6 From among these arise men who slyly work their way into households and captivate weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.

8 Now in the way that Janʹnes and Jamʹbres opposed Moses, so these also go on opposing the truth. Such men are completely corrupted in mind, disapproved as regards the faith. 9 Nevertheless, they will make no further progress, for their folly will be very plain to all, as it was with those two men. 10 But you have closely followed my teaching, my course of life, my purpose, my faith, my patience, my love, my endurance, 11 the persecutions and sufferings such as I experienced in Antioch, in I·coʹni·um, in Lysʹtra. I endured these persecutions, and the Lord rescued me from them all. 12 In fact, all those desiring to live with godly devotion in association with Christ Jesus will also be persecuted. 13 But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.

14 You, however, continue in the things that you learned and were persuaded to believe, knowing from whom you learned them 15 and that from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

The effects of Nationalism: patterns in human behaviour

a reply to: whereislogic

You forget the fact that when Jesus Christ was asked about it, he said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Jesus taught that he wasn't here to change politics, but stated people should abide by men's laws.

The U.S. has been a nationalist nation for a long time, yet the people of the U.S. have been some of the most generous in the world giving millions to charity, even outside the U.S., out of people's heart and good will.

When people are allowed to live life as they see fit, and they are able to, most people of good morals will give out freely to charity. Instead the left wants to force people, which is why the left want to force more taxes on the rest of us, and want to force us to continue to pay for the abortions of total strangers, even though millions of us see abortion as an evil deed.

a reply to: whereislogic

Perhaps you forget that God promised the chosen people a country of their own. Isn't that part of nationalism?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DBCowboy

better question is did you get it?

What most of us get is the fact that this idea of "no borders, no nations" is nothing more than the attempt by the left to impose the will of leftists all over the world upon everyone else who is not "left-wing."

When such a notion is IMPOSED on us, whose laws, what religion, what moral values, etc will people have to abide by? Will it be a "One World Order" based on Judeo-Christian beliefs? No... It will be a One World Dictatorship in which the ideas, and the laws of the left will be forced on everyone else. That is the truth, if you strip away all the "pretty words/euphemisms" behind such an idea.

Ah the dictionary defense. Do you feel gay when you see Trump on tv?