Check this out.
These people are serious.
This is what happens when liberalism gets going. One concession after another, and what is "right" gets eroded away until finally, out-and-out depravity is offered as a political party.
This is one of the reasons I'm a conservative.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Typical liberal, always salivating to look at their opponents in the worst possible light, always assuming, even hoping, there is corruption when there is none...
If you would have taken the time to look at the bottom of the above-linked article, you would have noticed that it is one of many articles in Yahoo's "Odd News" section. This is an option on the Yahoo home page, and I have chosen to read these mostly humorous stories.
How does this relate to US politics? Any intelligent individual can plainly see that our morals as a nation have been eroding over the past few decades; what was once wrong is now a lifestyle option. What was once considered a crime is now considered "something we need to learn to understand."
In this illustration, the Netherlands has become one of the most liberal societies in the world. They have legal drugs, legal prostitution everywhere, and now they have a political party that wants to legalize pedophilia.
Obvious conclusion: liberalism leads to more and more concessions in the morals of any country, including the United States, and that if we as Americans wish to avoid such idiocy as seen in the Netherlands, we need to get back to our conservative roots.
Your lame attempt at fear-mongering has failed. Why don't you go console yourself with your MoveOn.Org buddies and spit your bile somewhere else.
You just don't get it, do you?
The social aspects of liberalism [ie, if it feels good, do it; there is no right or wrong, it's just a matter of opinion; long term consequences don't matter, it's what happens now that really matters; it's all about 'me' not about anyone else (self-indulgence)] are what is eroding and destroying societies that adopt them.
In the Netherlands, there have been studies being done looking at the long-term consequences of the legalization of drugs. They've found that the overall intelligence quotient has gone down, and that people are killing themselves (on purpose or by accident) at an alarming rate.
In addition to that, the Netherlands is also a place where there is legalized suicide/euthanasia. Many elderly wear necklaces with a large sign saying "Don't Euthanize Me!" because of abuses that have been documented.
Just because people seem to be happy and fun-loving doesn't mean that the society they've created isn't destructive. Look at the facts about what's going on over there, and one can see where the destruction is.
What are you talking about "without your approval?" That doesn't make sense. I was using the example of the Netherlands story to make a general statement about liberalism. Was there something you didn't communicate effectively, or was this just another belligerent attack for no good reason?
I'm not trying to affect the Netherlands at all. I'm trying to draw attention to the dangers of liberalism in general. If the current leadership of the DNC gets its way, the looney left that has been financing the DNC will try to get more and more of these wacko things installed, assuming they are ever able to get people elected with the looney left agenda on the plate.
That's why I promote conservative candidates and conservative ideas. I look forward to the future, and not what feels good for just today.
It seems as if Mr. Jackson thinks that pedophilia is okay in the Netherlands as long as the people there are friendly.
Or am I off-base?
Any society that allows its morals to be compromised is destined for destruction. One look no further than the fall of Rome.
Hey, for what it's worth, just so you're not just beating up on Matt Jackson, I'm a liberal and I totally disagree with your characterization of the "social aspects of liberalism". I believe in consequences, some absolute truth as well as the role of relativism, and above all, in it not being about me. And please don't tell me that I'm actually a conservative. This is a tired and discredited debate tactic--put up a straw man and then blow it (him) down.
I would be interested to know what "some absolute truth" means...
Typically for a group of liberals it means different things to different people. What some call absolutely right or wrong, others do not charactize as such. This ultimately means one or more must compromise in order for agreement to take place. More and more compromise on little things gradually accumulates until eventually a group of small steps add up to one large step.
If the compromise is all about the brand of peanutbutter you buy at Kroger, it really doesn't matter. When it has to do with pedophilia, drugs of abuse, or prostitution, most people would agree these things are wrong.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that from what I've seen amongst the extreme-left leadership in the DNC, they seem to want to compromise as much as possible in order to win more support for their party. The recent bill in California that attempted to mandate textbooks to include pro-homosexual/bisexual/transexual propaganda is just one example.
So I ask you, who do you want pushing legislation: a party that is far from perfect and also has a history of compromising so as to attract support from people like George Soros...OR...a party that is far from perfect but tends to embrace ideals that reflect the values of the majority of the nation?
I keep my eye on BOTH parties, and do not support any bill or action by any candidate that does not reflect these values. The GOP does a substantially better job at this than does the DNC.
That is what I meant when I said, "This is why I am a conservative."
Well said, LR.
...
As long as the morals aren't forced on the unwilling, and people still have room for making personal choices. Whether it is a conservative or liberal government, I don't want conservative morals, nor the complete lack of liberal morals forced on me. That's just not the job of government.
My version of conservatism is allowing people to prosper or to self destruct, if that is their own choice, but not to regulate them or otherwise impose my will on them. There are far too many people in prison for "victimless" crimes. Most people will make good choices, the rest will either not prosper, or will end up voting democrat. (or not voting at all) Most will learn from this freedom and make the right choices when given the opportunity.
I think self determination and self responsibility is the root of conservatism, and is the complete opposite of the "nanny state" supported by Libs to impose their will and increase their power over the citizenry.
The party that protects our country, our citizens, our rights and our values better is obviously the Republican party. (With the exception of some of the Senate RINOS, aka, McCain.
Post a Comment