Liberal Fantasies vs. Reality,can you spot the difference?

Let me start by saying this thread is NOT to belittle liberals but to point out the slant in viewpoints from the far left and i respect both parties. I am posting a video link for all to watch and please feel free to voice your own opinion or even differences that you think the video left out and please for the love of god stay on topic!www.youtube.com...

reply to post by zeroeffect

Let me start by saying this thread is NOT to belittle liberals but to point out the slant in viewpoints from the far left and i respect both parties.

If this is true, why did you choose one side of the coin without presenting the other?

Here, I'll help balance the equation for you... You can thank me, or not...







[edit on 11-2-2010 by LadySkadi]

Thats kinda of hard to thank you due to the obvious and heavy editing of that video and yes i am presenting one side of the coin that is obvious in both video and title but i am merely stating that the purpose of doing so is not out of animosity but to present a side that will hopefully open the eyes of both party minded people alike and open up a healthy constructive dialog but the sole purpose is to show vast differences in the party culture...

reply to post by LadySkadi


OK after the change in you video that just makes me say wow that is just liberal propaganda so lets clear a few things up back in the day it was the republicans who fought for human rights while it was the democrats that were hugely racist and even today are the first to drop the race card in any or most arguments secondly its funny how the lib's will preach tolerance but are the first to shout bloody murder against any religion that isn't Muslim or questions their own belief structures and yeah lib's demonize capitalism because Marxism is cooler?

reply to post by zeroeffect
I changed the video with the intent to show that each side is propagandized.

However, I have to ask - how does presenting one-sided propaganda serve to open the minds of both sides? Makes no sense. What does make sense is the "intent" of this thread as presented, is meant to single out one group. Whether you will admit that or not.




[edit on 11-2-2010 by LadySkadi]

i did admit it i am presenting a party view that is not name calling or being belligerent to the other party in hope of showing the other party a perception based on reality and not propaganda

Originally posted by zeroeffect
i did admit it i am presenting a party view that is not name calling or being belligerent to the other party in hope of showing the other party a perception based on reality and not propaganda

I see. And you couldn't find another video that showed "Conservative Fantasies vs Reality" to balance the discussion? I guess not. I will leave you to it, then...

Some liberals do have fantasies that just won't work. Take for instance political speech. Liberals believe that if you rename a problem, that the problem goes away. Or, if you rename a group of people, you have empowered them.

So in my youth we had a Negro family that lived down the street. The father was a doctor. In the late sixties, if you said Negro, you were a racist. The correct term was "Black". It made no difference to me or as far as I could tell any of the "Blacks" we had in school.

The problems associated with the "Blacks" weren't resolved. They were still not achieving as well as "Whites" in school. The dropout rate was much higher. The rate of incarceration was much higher than for whites. The teen pregnancy rate amongst "Blacks" was skyrocketing due to Lyndon Johnson's "Great society program.

I went off to college where "Blacks" were seriously underrepresented in Engineering and/or science. I was pretty liberal in those days and was convinced that the "White man " was holding down our "Black" friends. Except that's not what I was seeing with my eyes, it was what liberals were saying.

I remember one woman who was single-handedly trying to eliminate racism. She was telling me that racism should be the biggest crime in the US. I asked her about freedom of speech. Since we were actively protesting the war in Vietnam at the time she told me that we needed freedom of speech but we shouldn't say anything that could be racist. I asked her if the truth was racist. She said it can be. That was a pivotal moment in my being liberal.

I started looking deeper into some of the things that I believed because I was liberal. Rather than believing in an issue because the liberals supported it or the conservatives were against it, I tried to evaluate each issue on it's own merits.

Now, as I approach retirement, and "Blacks" have become "African Americans" the problems have gotten worse, not better.

I'm neither liberal nor conservative. When I get asked to sign a petition, I actually read the petition and try to determine what is right.

I don't believe most politicians regardless of their political affiliation. I think that hard core liberals are just as crazy as hard core conservatives.

As modern Leftism originates from the socialism developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, both of whom were pro-collectivist, it also defends the centralized form of government thatcan be seen as a threat to local communities.

There is a passive-aggressive nature of modern Leftism: it upholds, justifies, and glorifies the weak, unsuccessful, sick, and degenerate - and therefore tends to be seen as a passive movement - but is at the same time aggressive about anything that would criticize or otherwise prove the Leftist wrong. Modern Leftists speak about freedom and that all people have the right to live where they please, yet they're hostile towards movements that do not agree with the Leftist agenda - that is National Socialism and Fascism. Leftists believe in multiculturalism and want all people to be equal and live side by side in society, yet they're aggressively attacking white middle class males as being sexist, racist, dominant, imperialist, violent, etc. Leftists claim to be strongly pacifist, yet they don't think twice before going out on the streets and using violence on political opponents during otherwise peaceful demonstrations.

We choose to call this behavior passive-aggressive, because the individual in question hovers between two extremes; it is by nature very aggressive, but is at the same time able to maintain a social image of being a victim. Thus the individual is able to hide its true motivations if its basic psychology remains a clue to the open public. For instance, most people believe Democracy stands from freedom and peace, even though the people living in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Dresden, probably weren't very happy with this concept of 'peace'. The same thing can be attributed to Democracy as being respectful of other people; it clearly didn't think twice before moving into Iraq and demonstrating another example of modern imperialism. Yet most people never think about this, and so movements like Leftism manage to exert their power without ever being criticized of their basic motivations.

reply to post by Wildbob77


Exactly Wild you hit the nail on the head with name changing, look at Janet napolitano who changed acts of terrorism to man made disasters and other various things which after the whole Christmas fiasco President Obama had to change his tune so as not to appear weak anymore on the War on terror

You start off with lie, and present a lie, and that makes you, take a guess, a lier.

reply to post by zeroeffect


More ludicrous posturing from navel-gazing Americans with a shockingly poor grasp of their own history.

I stopped the vid when he told me that THE TRUTH was that LHO did JFK. A few points arising:

• He wasn't there at the time
  
• He can't know, therefore...
  
• all he's done is choose the comforting POV that the lone gunman did it... whereas
  
• there's a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise: also
  
• Klavan is a novelist, not a historian
  
• if he were a historian, he'd know, for example, that LHO's tax records are still classified
  
• that means whe don't know whose payroll he was on at the time of the hit, but
  
• we know he was on someone's payroll, otherwise the details wouldn't be still secret.
  

In summary, Klavan writes great books but this gives him no special insight into political events. Unlike James Ellroy, for example, another fictional writer who has done the research and has written some good books on the subject.

reply to post by rich23



I disagree sir JFK was indeed a Conservative but back then they called it Democrat and you're right Klavan is a Novelist and like any good novelist like you agreed he was he knows how to do RESEARCH,shocking this thing called research that would make him qualified to give guess what? a qualified researched opinion