I find it interesting how people with "liberal" views and left wing thinking are quick to condemn anyone who disagrees with their point of view. I often hear the words "narrow minded" when it comes to people who don't follow the politically correct status quo.

I'd argue that this is in itself narrow minded since what the lefties are saying is "my way is the only way and i disrespect your right to disagree with me".

It's one of many many many double standards that our society seems to tolerate and im sick of it..

Im a very liberal thinker when it comes to most things. So liberal that i actually believe that you should be able to think however you want, even if i disagree with you.

Imagine that

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

Left Wing?

___________________
djchrisallen.net | myspace | ava recordings | facebook | facebook fan page | twitter

there's idiots on both sides of the line.... you're surprised by this?

___________________
//..

Jay: look up "groupthink", I have a feeling you'll find it very interesting.

The reasons for this are long and complicated, but most of them stem from the media and the popular belief that the news is reported without bias.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Anyone who thinks the media is without bias is naive...but what bothers me is that many Conservative supporters (or non-Liberal supporters in general) seem to feel that ALL mainstream media is biased towards the Liberals.

I'd argue that could be a cop out for explaining away incompetent or unsuccessful opposition leadership (re: Harper) which fails to garner widespread support for it's party.

calls of being "narrow minded" is not about whether or not someone agrees with a particular point of view...it's used when people summarily dismiss a change in the status quo or are unwilling to question their own position.

It's beating a dead horse, but the gay marriage debate is clear example, IMHO. I've still seen little in the way of logical reasoning to deny it...so I'd say it's fair to call detractors "narrow minded" if they oppose it yet cannot defend their position without refering to their religious priniciples (particularly when marriage is a state-granted legal status and state and church are separate)

On the topic of double standards...

Harper recently said that he doesn't care about dissenting voices in his party, that he will stay the course. That's great...he seems to have an agenda for which he will not compromise and his supporters view this, rightly so, as him sticking to his principles. Yet when Martin expresses the same resolve around issues where their is internal dissent, he's called a tyrant or dictator in some circles.

When the Bloc and NDP support the Conservatives to "bring down the corrup Liberal gov't", it's somehow ok. But when they support the Liberals, such as the NDP supporting the budget when Martin made concessions on spending, whatever negative catch phrase is prevalent at the time is used to describe the relationship (the Liberals being "in bed with the separatists" or whatever the phrase was).

double standards are indeed alive and well in Canadian politics and media...but they are *certainly* not limited to the Left and all sides are guilty of it at some point or another. No party can sit on their high moral horse and condemn the others because they all engage in some type of bias, spin, corruption, and double standards at some point during their existence. It's not acceptable, but it's equally unacceptable to imply that only one party (generally whomever is in power at the time) is guity of such.

this isnt even about parties. Im talking about how the average person thinks. Parties are incarnations of their own kind.

The average canadian likes to think they are liberal thinkers but has no problem when it comes to forcing their own regiment on others. Doing that defies the very definition of liberal itself! Being liberal is not all about accepting different races and sexualities (although that does play a part of it). Being liberal truely means live and let live. Being a liberal thinker means you have strong beliefs but also defend the right for others to think how they want.

A true liberal thinker therefor would not:

a) force their beliefs on religious institutions

b) support laws that curtail the right of others to express themselves even if deemed immoral by the mainstream of society (with obvious exceptions such as instances where expression directly harms someone else such as libel or slander)

c) force their morality on others such as "i dont smoke so im going to pass laws that make sure that you cant either"

Real liberal thinkers truely live and let live. Canadian liberal thinkers give you the "my way or the highway" approach which is the most conservative you could possibly be.

Most canadians who are against gay marriage for example dont have a problem with gay people being married. They worry that the next step is forcing religious insitutions to perform these marriages against their will. And with all the conservative "liberals" out there, their worries are justified.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

My post on an American forum dealing with Bush vs Kerry (again) essentailly covers the blindness that Republicans/Democrats seem to have, due to the two party system. Even some Republicans that disagree with Bush will defend him till they're are blue in the face since they can't or wont support any alternative.

The same can be said for the Liberal Party supporters on this website, with their chants of "Who else do we choose" etc. (when a braintrust fails, you do not re-elect said braintrust IMO) I'm too tired to re-edit to apply this post to Liberals completely, but you get the idea.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Beuk
democrats have been fucking up the usa since Kennedy, bud.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No doubt, politicians are politicians.

But we are talking current times. All personal insults aside in regards to Bush, he hasn't done a good job leading.

Certainly he's one part inherited the mess, but he's also picked up the shit he's in.. and thrown it on the walls. And I doubt he really has much to do with final decisons and leading, which is sort of the problem. He's very much a figure head president IMO, and he hasn't done much to promote the US in a positive light, or act like a head of state should.

We can debate the intellect of the man, his ability to lead, and his character, until the cows come home, but bottom line is he has the worst relationship with the citizens he governs since any other president since Nixon.

Your relationship with the rest of the world has deteriorated to the point where your best friends north of the border are done defending you on the world stage and the personal one. Hell, you bully us much like you have the rest of the world in trade now, and have gone against signed treaties for cattle, softwood lumber, and the fishery stocks. There is nothing wrong with NAFTA as much as you simply have decided it's not convienient to abide by it.

After 9/11, you had the western world's and other nation's condolences and support. Instead of harnessing that to foster good relationships, you've instead collected it to form a posse and react in rage, showing the ugly side of you to the world.

Sort of when you see a friend suffer a tragic incident, and they react in anger in such a violent, frightening, disturbing manner that you shy away from them in horror, fear and eventiually disgust.

Basically I think the problem on this forum (and the American Political Arena) is that despite the poor performance of one group, it's automatically assumed that the critic wants to implant the opposite side. All I'm saying is that the current people in the repubian party upper crust need to go. If the next group is better, and more deserving of office than the oppositon, so be it.. that's what elections are for.


But the republican braintrust has not performed well over their current tenure, and it starts with GW.
For fuck sake, eveytime the man goes on vacation a tragedy occurs, and he reacts poorly. How can you defend that constantly? It has nothing to do with your personal belief system as much as his inabilty to exercise that system properly and decisively throughout his term.

Mark: If we're talking parties, then no doubt the Conservative party has incompetent leadership. That is abundantly clear. The LPC has dragged us and our country through the mud with scandal after scandal and whoever's supposed to be in charge of the Conservatives doesn't even have the balls to appear on TV to say something about it. Their leadership is utterly weak. I seriously doubt that their lack of success is based on their unwillingness to concede to the status quo on issues like gay marriage - it's based on their spinelessness more than anything else.

But this wasn't really about parties. "Liberals" here refers to left-wingers, that's it - in terms of parties that could just as easily apply to NDP.

The nature of groupthink means it doesn't apply to any specific group - that is, it can apply to any group. But one of the prerequisites for groupthink is a certain homogeneity in the group - a lack of dissenting views, if you will. With conservative groups in Canada this is not the case quite so much. There is a lot of intellectual diversity - some support gun control, some don't. Some support gay marriages, some don't. Some are very wealthy, some make a pretty modest living and don't mind the idea of taxing the rich or the corporations. Et cetera.

It's different with the liberals in Canada, though. I think 80% of the population or more in this country:
- Supports big government
- Is against privatization of health care, hydro, etc.
- Supports gay marriage
- Supports affirmative action
- Does not support Bush (despises him, in fact)
- Supports the U.N. and its notion of international law
- Sympathizes with terrorists from Palestine, Iraq, etc.
- Supports strict gun control
- Is generally anti-religion
- Supports environmentalists and believes in global warming, the oil crash, etc.
- Supports recycling programs
- Supports the Canadian idea/model of "multiculturalism"
- Would like to see marijuana decriminalized
- Believes in some sort of class system (usually the "rich" and "poor")
- Is pro-abortion, with no reservations and no questions asked
- Supports welfare and other social services
- Believes in concepts like "systemic" racism/sexism
- Believes that a Conservative government would result in more scandals than a Liberal government (even though history has proven otherwise)
- Believes that Trudeau was an enlightened visionary
- Believes socialism can work economically as long as the "right people are in charge"
- Believes that there is no liberal media bias
- Believes that people with "extreme right wing" views should not be allowed to have a voice
- Believes that it is OK to sacrifice certain freedoms for our own protection or for the "greater good"

In fact, the number of beliefs Canadians refuse to waver from is staggering, considering how much we encourage "diversity" here. It is simultaneously the cause of and the result of liberal groupthink - if anyone expresses a dissenting view they are labelled as a right-wing nut, therefore most people will instead attempt to convince themselves that they agree with the status quo.

And what's scary is that many of these people will actually become enraged and even violent when someone challenges their views on the subject. We hear about cars with Bush stickers being vandalized, but never cars with Kerry stickers. When Cheney makes speeches to the press, you hear people saying "fuck you asshole" in the background, but we never heard that during a Clinton speech. Our entire nation snickers when Bush says "misunderestimate", but when Clinton says that something depends on our definition of the word "is", we fall strangely silent.

I think that is what Jay is talking about. Mainly, thatthose who preach tolerance the most seem to be the least inclined to exercise it.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 this isnt even about parties. Im talking about how the average person thinks. Parties are incarnations of their own kind. The average canadian likes to think they are liberal thinkers but has no problem when it comes to forcing their own regiment on others. Doing that defies the very definition of liberal itself! Being liberal is not all about accepting different races and sexualities (although that does play a part of it). Being liberal truely means live and let live. Being a liberal thinker means you have strong beliefs but also defend the right for others to think how they want.

I agree with all of that.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 A true liberal thinker therefor would not: a) force their beliefs on religious institutions

I'm presuming that you are refering to the gay marriage debate. Assuming this to be the case, it should be noted that few people of any consequence in this debate have *ever* suggested that either religious institutions ought not be protected from performing gay marriages or that such institutions even be forced to recognize them within the context of their religion.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 b) support laws that curtail the right of others to express themselves even if deemed immoral by the mainstream of society (with obvious exceptions such as instances where expression directly harms someone else such as libel or slander)

I agree...freedom of expression is obviously an important right...though it does have reasonably limits (inciting hatred or violence, for eg.)

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 c) force their morality on others such as "i dont smoke so im going to pass laws that make sure that you cant either"

lol...ok, you lose it here. Morality has *nothing* to do with this. I don't think anyone thinks it's "immoral" to smoke.

this ties *directly* into your "live and let live" philosophy too. Live and let live, when further explained, really means to let everyone esentially do as they wish, so long as what they do does not prevent other from doing the same or cause others harm.

I'm really not going to debate this AGAIN, but smoking in public harms others. This is scientific fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Real liberal thinkers truely live and let live. Canadian liberal thinkers give you the "my way or the highway" approach which is the most conservative you could possibly be.

Most canadians who are against gay marriage for example dont have a problem with gay people being married. They worry that the next step is forcing religious insitutions to perform these marriages against their will. And with all the conservative "liberals" out there, their worries are justified. [/QUOTE]

if it's "live and let live" why was there even a debate on legalizing gay marriage? Shouldn't all "liberal" Canadians just have said "sure, why not grant gays the same legal status as other citizens?". ie. they ought not invoke religious arguments...because marriage is NOT a religious sacrament exclusive to the Church, it is a *legal status* that is granted by *the state*...and because that is imposing their religious beliefs on the state and on all gays.

I particularly take issue with the claim you make in that last paragraph. In fact, though I can't prove otherwise, I think it's flat out bullshit. Though I have no numbers to support my belief, I *highly* doubt that for the majority of people opposing gay marriage, the central reason was their concern that the rights of their religious organization (if they even belong to one in the first place) would be threatened.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Mark: If we're talking parties, then no doubt the Conservative party has incompetent leadership. That is abundantly clear. The LPC has dragged us and our country through the mud with scandal after scandal and whoever's supposed to be in charge of the Conservatives doesn't even have the balls to appear on TV to say something about it. Their leadership is utterly weak. I seriously doubt that their lack of success is based on their unwillingness to concede to the status quo on issues like gay marriage - it's based on their spinelessness more than anything else. But this wasn't really about parties. "Liberals" here refers to left-wingers, that's it - in terms of parties that could just as easily apply to NDP. The nature of groupthink means it doesn't apply to any specific group - that is, it can apply to any group. But one of the prerequisites for groupthink is a certain homogeneity in the group - a lack of dissenting views, if you will. With conservative groups in Canada this is not the case quite so much. There is a lot of intellectual diversity - some support gun control, some don't. Some support gay marriages, some don't. Some are very wealthy, some make a pretty modest living and don't mind the idea of taxing the rich or the corporations. Et cetera. It's different with the liberals in Canada, though. I think 80% of the population or more in this country: - Supports big government - Is against privatization of health care, hydro, etc. - Supports gay marriage - Supports affirmative action - Does not support Bush (despises him, in fact) - Supports the U.N. and its notion of international law - Sympathizes with terrorists from Palestine, Iraq, etc. - Supports strict gun control - Is generally anti-religion - Supports environmentalists and believes in global warming, the oil crash, etc. - Supports recycling programs - Supports the Canadian idea/model of "multiculturalism" - Would like to see marijuana decriminalized - Believes in some sort of class system (usually the "rich" and "poor") - Is pro-abortion, with no reservations and no questions asked - Supports welfare and other social services - Believes in concepts like "systemic" racism/sexism - Believes that a Conservative government would result in more scandals than a Liberal government (even though history has proven otherwise) - Believes that Trudeau was an enlightened visionary - Believes socialism can work economically as long as the "right people are in charge" - Believes that there is no liberal media bias - Believes that people with "extreme right wing" views should not be allowed to have a voice - Believes that it is OK to sacrifice certain freedoms for our own protection or for the "greater good" In fact, the number of beliefs Canadians refuse to waver from is staggering, considering how much we encourage "diversity" here. It is simultaneously the cause of and the result of liberal groupthink - if anyone expresses a dissenting view they are labelled as a right-wing nut, therefore most people will instead attempt to convince themselves that they agree with the status quo. And what's scary is that many of these people will actually become enraged and even violent when someone challenges their views on the subject. We hear about cars with Bush stickers being vandalized, but never cars with Kerry stickers. When Cheney makes speeches to the press, you hear people saying "fuck you asshole" in the background, but we never heard that during a Clinton speech. Our entire nation snickers when Bush says "misunderestimate", but when Clinton says that something depends on our definition of the word "is", we fall strangely silent. I think that is what Jay is talking about. Mainly, thatthose who preach tolerance the most seem to be the least inclined to exercise it.

I understand what you are saying and agree that there is a group mentality to a great extent...though I'd disagree with some of the assertions you make, at least on a personal level. The idea of a total "live and let live" philosphy only works when people actually give a shit about each other and the community in which they live. That is no longer the case for a great number of people...people who don't know their neighbour's name, could care less about the state of their neighbourhood (let alone their city, province or country), etc. It's a "me me me" mentality that's progressively getting worse.

Groupthink applies just as easily to any group...and any party...not just liberals and Liberals. There were plenty of dissenting voices on gay marriage, for example, within both the Liberal party and among liberals. In fact, wouldn't groupthink more accurately describe the Conservatives since every other party was mostly in support of it? Again, I agree groupthink exists, but it's not unique to liberals.

As for the cars being vandalized, the name calling during speeches...you'll note that's in the U.S. The worse that seems to happen here is that some politician gets a pie in the face. oh my, the horror!

as for your points, many would describe me...many would not. I'll spare everyone reading my thoughts on each though

I think that there is come confusion on what it means to be "liberal". Yes, it should certainly include a "live and let live" philosophy...but why should it not include an unwavering stand on some issues? It's not anti-liberal to hold strong opinions or to not budge from a position. If you're "liberal" you should fiercely defend free speech, for example. So unreasonable censorship should not be tolerated. Is it "anti-liberal" to not waver on that belief? I don't think so. I don't think it's "anti-liberal" to fiercely defend topics like gay marriage and abortion either.

btw...our entire nation could be forgiven from snickering when Bush demonstrates his poor grasp of the English language when giving a speech. It's a fucking embarassment to the office he holds when he comes across like an uneducated hillbilly.

Clinton got his dick sucked...wow. Bill Maher put it best when he suggested that he had no problem with someone in that office, under the stress they are under, getting their dick sucked, lol. If Clinton forced/coerced her into doing so, then he should be subject to criminal punishment, just as anyone else would be. However, he probably got a big woody from getting blown in the oval office...and she probably was wet from knowing she was blowing the "most powerful man in the world". So get over it. Is he the first president to get his dick sucked by a woman other than his wife? LMFAO...I think not. THIS IS NOT NEWS! But this event will define his presidency? fuck me...that's just ridiculous!!!

Clinton was nearly impeached for getting head...yet Bush remains in power after invading and occupying a sovereign nation (without U.N. support, for whatever that's worth), resulting the deaths of 2000 U.S. soldiers (and counting), not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqis who've been killed ...let's not forget about the admitted torture and humiliation of detainees (should we talk about respecting religious freedoms here too?)...and whose military commitments appear to have contributed to the lack of response to a natural disaster at home that was seen coming *days* in advance. We'll leave out the election scandal where it took days to even figure out who won, ultimately decided in a state where his brother is in power. His entire time in office has been one fuck up and scandal after another.

So I think it's fair to say that Bush and his people can be expected to endure whatever "fuck you asshole" they get when speaking in public

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT The idea of a total "live and let live" philosphy only works when people actually give a shit about each other and the community in which they live.

You're right in that things might become chaotic if we adopted that philosophy, but there is always a lag between political shifts and their respective community shifts. Eventually, people would start to give a shit again if we stopped blindsiding them with thousands of laws and regulations and expectations.

quote:

Groupthink applies just as easily to any group...and any party...not just liberals and Liberals. There were plenty of dissenting voices on gay marriage, for example, within both the Liberal party and among liberals. In fact, wouldn't groupthink more accurately describe the Conservatives since every other party was mostly in support of it? Again, I agree groupthink exists, but it's not unique to liberals.

One of the first things I said was that it doesn't just apply to liberals. I don't see how the Conservatives' opposition to gay marriage was evidence of groupthink, though - as you yourself mentioned, everyone in that party was well aware of the dissenting voices. A political party must have a party line - groupthink only exists when members are afraid to stray from that party line.

quote:

As for the cars being vandalized, the name calling during speeches...you'll note that's in the U.S. The worse that seems to happen here is that some politician gets a pie in the face. oh my, the horror!

Well, I can't say I'm aware of any similar serious violence occurring in Canada, you are correct in that regard. Nevertheless this thread wasn't about Canada, it was about liberals in general - and I do maintain that most liberals here do get very *emotional* when their views are challenged, even if it doesn't lead to actual violence. You know as well as I do, Mark, that many people on this board will resort to personal insults whenever I challenge something politically-charged that they've said.

quote:

as for your points, many would describe me...many would not. I'll spare everyone reading my thoughts on each though

We both know that you're not the typical liberal that we've been talking about in this thread.

quote:

I think that there is come confusion on what it means to be "liberal". Yes, it should certainly include a "live and let live" philosophy...but why should it not include an unwavering stand on some issues? It's not anti-liberal to hold strong opinions or to not budge from a position. If you're "liberal" you should fiercely defend free speech, for example. So unreasonable censorship should not be tolerated. Is it "anti-liberal" to not waver on that belief? I don't think so. I don't think it's "anti-liberal" to fiercely defend topics like gay marriage and abortion either.

Yes, there is definitely some confusion as to the meaning of the term "liberal", and we've been through this before... I am a "liberal" in the classic sense, but the type of "liberal" that Jay and I have been talking about in this thread is the hard left. They all describe themselves as liberal, and yet they do not believe in free speech - that is the irony here.

By no means is it anti-liberal to be defending topics like gay marriage and abortion. It is, however, anti-liberal to try and silence those opposed to it with slander and lawsuits instead of encouraging and engaging in open debate.

quote:

Clinton got his dick sucked...wow.

You're really missing the point there - I wasn't criticizing him for his affair, just on the blasé attitude he took toward the situation and the absolutely ridiculous things he said in his defense (such as, "that depends on your definition of the word 'is'"). Is that any less ridiculous than some of the things we've heard Bush say?

Also, it's worth pointing out that many (if not most) of the "misquotables" attributed to bush are actually misquoted. Some were uttered by Dan Quayle; some were quotations that were believed to have been said by Quayle but were never actually said; and some were actually spoken by Clinton.

quote:

...yet Bush remains in power after invading and occupying a sovereign nation (without U.N. support, for whatever that's worth), resulting the deaths of 2000 U.S. soldiers (and counting), not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqis who've been killed ...

You just had to bring that up didn't you... you do know that those figures are completely bogus, right? And you do know that Clinton was also in support of military action, but just never went through with it, right?

quote:

...and whose military commitments appear to have contributed to the lack of response to a natural disaster at home that was seen coming *days* in advance.

Oh yes, let's all blame Bush for that. What did you expect them to do? They built the city below sea level and almost everyone refused to leave. And once the hurricane had started, they could not possibly go in until it stopped. It's a terribly tragedy, but for cryin' out loud, enough finger pointing!

quote:

We'll leave out the election scandal where it took days to even figure out who won, ultimately decided in a state where his brother is in power.

Evidently you couldn't leave that out. We'll "leave out" the fact that this "scandal" happened the first time he was in office and that his re-election was "fair and square". But in any event, please tell me you don't actually believe this crock. There is one reason, and only one reason that the election results were in doubt, and that is because the news media kept jumping the gun on calling states for democrats (but delayed forever on Republican states). They would wait 12 hours before calling a state for the Republicans when they were more than 10 points in the lead, but they would call states for the Democrats when the Dems were actually a few points behind and not all the results were in yet. There was no scandal in Florida - just a whole lot of bad press.

Come now - if Bush had lost the election and whined the way Gore did, he would have been laughed out of existence. Gore, on the other hand, had his legions of foaming-at-the-mouth loony leftists to support his inane accusations.

quote:

So I think it's fair to say that Bush and his people can be expected to endure whatever "fuck you asshole" they get when speaking in public

And they do endure it, with tact and professionalism and a sense of humour. Remember when Bush started his speech about Canada with "I'd like to thank all the people who came out to greet me - with all five fingers"? I think they even showed that clip on the Daily Show. Admit it - you at least chuckled when you heard that.

Elected officials should be expected not to lose their cool under such circumstances, but that doesn't excuse the behaviour of the hecklers.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Coles notes?

___________________
Trance in my pants