Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48

Thread: Liberal Extremism

  1. #1
    Ecthelion's Avatar Great Ramen Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The land beyond the River Styx
    Posts
    1,304

    Default Liberal Extremism

    We always hear about conservative extremism, or periods during a nation's history when conservative forces take over and people start dying. But what about when things go too far the other way?

    Personally, I think that the Western world has gone past the point where liberalism makes sense. Since the end of the Second World War, Europe has been on a mostly liberal track. With the Civil Rights Movement in the US, the same happened.

    Intially, I think this was good. European colonialism had outlived its time and black people were getting the shaft in the 1950s simply because they were black.

    But since that time, there has been no significant movement in the conservative direction. So, have we gone into the zone of liberal extremism?

    Political Correctness, I think, is the manifestation of Western liberal extremism. In the perfectly PC world, everyone is "equal but unique" and all people live in harmony, hold hands, believe in all different faiths but miraculously get along.

    Anyone over the age of 12 should know quite well that such a world is impossible. People need to have people they hate, people they love, people they admire, people they detest. Equality and harmony are, therefore, inherently impossible given human nature.

    But despite this logic, the liberal media still reports things as if the PC world could exist. Anyone who argues against PC is immediately labeled as a "racist", "bigot", "Chrisitian Fundamentalist", "Neo-Nazi", or just "conservative". It seems that no one can halt this liberal trainwreck.

    Everything from the official response riots in Paris (namely one of appeasement) to Affirmative Action in the US, these are all cases where liberal extremism has overriden simple logic.

    With the liberal media firmly in control, and most people afraid to speak up (remind you of certain totalitarian regimes anyone?), can this track of liberalism ever be halted?
    This is my signature. Isn't it awesome?

  2. #2
    wilpuri's Avatar It Gets Worse.
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    The Weimar Republic
    Posts
    9,512

    Default

    There's nothing liberal about the 'extremism' of our time. It's tolerate or die. There is no room for dissent.
    The common culture of a tribe is a sign of its inner cohesion. But tribes are vanishing from the modern world, as are all forms of traditional society. Customs, practices, festivals, rituals and beliefs have acquired a flut and half-hearted quality which reflects our nomadic and rootless existence, predicated as we are on the global air-waves.

    ROGER SCRUTON, Modern Culture

  3. #3
    Darth Wong's Avatar Pit Bull
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    4,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion
    We always hear about conservative extremism, or periods during a nation's history when conservative forces take over and people start dying. But what about when things go too far the other way?

    Personally, I think that the Western world has gone past the point where liberalism makes sense. Since the end of the Second World War, Europe has been on a mostly liberal track. With the Civil Rights Movement in the US, the same happened.

    Intially, I think this was good. European colonialism had outlived its time and black people were getting the shaft in the 1950s simply because they were black.

    But since that time, there has been no significant movement in the conservative direction. So, have we gone into the zone of liberal extremism?
    Define specific, concrete examples of what you consider to be "liberal extremism".
    Political Correctness, I think, is the manifestation of Western liberal extremism. In the perfectly PC world, everyone is "equal but unique" and all people live in harmony, hold hands, believe in all different faiths but miraculously get along.

    Anyone over the age of 12 should know quite well that such a world is impossible. People need to have people they hate, people they love, people they admire, people they detest. Equality and harmony are, therefore, inherently impossible given human nature.
    That doesn't mean a world of harmony isn't something to aspire to. Are you saying that it's good for people to hate each other? That's the is/ought fallacy.
    But despite this logic, the liberal media still reports things as if the PC world could exist. Anyone who argues against PC is immediately labeled as a "racist", "bigot", "Chrisitian Fundamentalist", "Neo-Nazi", or just "conservative". It seems that no one can halt this liberal trainwreck.
    Please find examples in mainstream media where this is happening. I know there's plenty of fringe media, but that proves nothing; there has always been fringe media supporting any and all forms of extremism (need I remind you of stormfront,org?)
    Everything from the official response riots in Paris (namely one of appeasement) to Affirmative Action in the US, these are all cases where liberal extremism has overriden simple logic.
    Please show how the logic was flawed.
    With the liberal media firmly in control, and most people afraid to speak up (remind you of certain totalitarian regimes anyone?), can this track of liberalism ever be halted?
    Produce an objective definition of "liberal media" along with evidence for its predominance.
    Quote Originally Posted by wilpuri
    There's nothing liberal about the 'extremism' of our time. It's tolerate or die. There is no room for dissent.
    And yet here you are, dissenting. Strange, isn't it?

    Yes, I have a life outside the Internet and Rome Total War
    "Oedipus ruined a great sex life by asking too many questions" - Stephen Colbert
    Under the kind patronage of Seleukos

  4. #4
    Saint-Germain's Avatar Comte
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    The Emerald City
    Posts
    1,987

    Default

    Watch out Wilpuri! waaaaAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!

    When I saw this topic, I immediately thought of the French Revolution...
    né Menander
    Under the covetous wing of Ozymandias
    Patronizing my favourite (not so) little guy, Turbo

    "With this weather, it might as well be Thursday..."

  5. #5
    wilpuri's Avatar It Gets Worse.
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    The Weimar Republic
    Posts
    9,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Wong
    And yet here you are, dissenting. Strange, isn't it?
    Quite, after all I am writing under my real name and everything. But I admit, my reply was more in jest than anything else, although I do believe, that the current atmosphere only looks kindly upon 'right' opinions, and those who utter the wrong ones are quite easily socially stigmatized.

    French MEP Bruno Gollnisch lost his immunity status after daring to question the realities of the holocaust, and will be tried in court. We should soon witness 'ideologically and politically independent' organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, among others, rally behind him and campaign for his freedom of speech.

    Or not?
    The common culture of a tribe is a sign of its inner cohesion. But tribes are vanishing from the modern world, as are all forms of traditional society. Customs, practices, festivals, rituals and beliefs have acquired a flut and half-hearted quality which reflects our nomadic and rootless existence, predicated as we are on the global air-waves.

    ROGER SCRUTON, Modern Culture

  6. #6
    Ummon's Avatar Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    19,146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Wong
    That doesn't mean a world of harmony isn't something to aspire to. Are you saying that it's good for people to hate each other? That's the is/ought fallacy.
    Sure, we all aspire to perfection, but given that perfection is impossible, is it a good idea to impose it?

  7. #7
    Ecthelion's Avatar Great Ramen Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The land beyond the River Styx
    Posts
    1,304

    Default

    That doesn't mean a world of harmony isn't something to aspire to. Are you saying that it's good for people to hate each other? That's the is/ought fallacy.
    Never aspire to something that is impossible to achieve. You will always fall short and that is even worse. The greatest results are setting realistic goals, achieving them, and then going from there.

    Define specific, concrete examples of what you consider to be "liberal extremism".
    You mean besides the fact that all "offensive" names are being changed and that now it is easier for an "underrepresented" minority to get a job than it would be for a Caucasian or East Asian?
    How about the fact that it it totally okay for an entire city to riot violently for days on end as long as "underrepresented minorities" are doing it (LA, Paris)?

    Please show how the logic was flawed.
    The whole appeasement policy with immigrant discontent in France is flawed because it reverses the immigrant/native relationship. A native is born to a country and thus bound to it. If they feel something is wrong, they have the right as citizens to complain. Immigrants have no such right, especially not to complain violently. Their very decision to immigrate implies that they accept the rules of their adopted country. It's an unspoken contract signed by all immigrants. If they don't like the country, they have the choice of not going. If the grow to not like it, they have the choice of leaving.

    To put this is more everday way, would you ever go to a guest's house and throw a violent tantrum because your tea wasn't served correctly? If you were to do that, would you guests simply chastise themselves and promise you better tea in the future? Because that's exactly what the French government did. And I suspect that the other Western European governments would have done the same.

    This is liberal extremism.

    My point is that people are afraid to speak their minds should it go against the PC dogma. Any deviation from it and you can be sure to be thrown into any number of generic "conservative" or "fundamentalist" bins where no one will ever listen to you.

    I mean, the people on this forum are able to flaunt the PC rules because we're online, but how many of you would say the same thing to strangers in real life?
    This is my signature. Isn't it awesome?

  8. #8
    Marshal Qin's Avatar Bow to ME!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Back home for now
    Posts
    2,215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion

    My point is that people are afraid to speak their minds should it go against the PC dogma. Any deviation from it and you can be sure to be thrown into any number of generic "conservative" or "fundamentalist" bins where no one will ever listen to you.

    I mean, the people on this forum are able to flaunt the PC rules because we're online, but how many of you would say the same thing to strangers in real life?
    Its odd but I seem to be more PC online than I am in real life. Maybe its because when I'm typing something I have more time to reflect on what it is I'm actually saying and the logic behind it. Being online has certainly given me a more balanced view on the world at large.
    I think PCness is going too far when details are left out of media reports for fear of singling out minorities - e.g. the description of someone who commits a crime, but there is a balance that has to be struck to avoid all people of any particular group being stigmatised - leading intollerance and the fracturing of society. Its like a friend of mine says: "the pendulum has swung too far" on a number of issues, PCness being one of them. It will swing too far the other way in reaction but eventually we will find a balance. You can't find the centre until you discover the extremes.
    Exotic Slave - Spook 153, Barbarian Turncoat - Drugpimp, Catamite - Invoker 47
    Drunken Uncle - Wicked, Priest of Jupiter - Guderian


    Under the patronage of El-Sib Why? ...... Because Siblesz sent me
    Proud member of the Australian-New Zealand Beer Appreciation Society (ANZBAS?)

  9. #9
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY, US
    Posts
    6,521

    Default

    America barely has any liberals, nevermind extremist liberals.

  10. #10
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion
    My point is that people are afraid to speak their minds should it go against the PC dogma. Any deviation from it and you can be sure to be thrown into any number of generic "conservative" or "fundamentalist" bins where no one will ever listen to you.
    I find this to be very PC, claiming that if you speak your mind you will be classified a conservative or fundamentalist. When some people speak thier mind they are also classified as liberals. What you get classified depends on what your opinions are.

    Like I said in the other PCness thread, PCness is nothing but a tool of politicians, the media and people who speak against it to get their own issues into the spotlight. No one is stopping you from speaking your mind, some people are racist, some people are bigoted, blaming PCness won't change that.

    I have never seen the entire media or "liberal media" as you call it, call anyone racist or bigoted that did not fit the term, sure there are some stations that do but not all, not the majority. For example recently in Australia the media were being PC with both sides, i.e rioters, instead of anglo saxon rioters, and middle eastern instead of Lebanese. I don't really see some kind of liberal conspiracy there, the media did not want to alienate it's viewers. It's bad for business after all.

    And as MQ said we have to have a certain balance to maintain a functioning society, some peoples views are just not realistic enough to achieve thier goals without destroying the society itself. The average voter/citizen does not want this, the average citizen/voter just wants to live a peacefull life. Thus these people get classified as fundamentalists, and they deserve that term, because that is what they are. That is reality not PC.

    The whole appeasement policy with immigrant discontent in France is flawed because it reverses the immigrant/native relationship. A native is born to a country and thus bound to it. If they feel something is wrong, they have the right as citizens to complain. Immigrants have no such right, especially not to complain violently. Their very decision to immigrate implies that they accept the rules of their adopted country. It's an unspoken contract signed by all immigrants. If they don't like the country, they have the choice of not going. If the grow to not like it, they have the choice of leaving.

    To put this is more everday way, would you ever go to a guest's house and throw a violent tantrum because your tea wasn't served correctly? If you were to do that, would you guests simply chastise themselves and promise you better tea in the future? Because that's exactly what the French government did. And I suspect that the other Western European governments would have done the same.
    Your simplifying the issue so it can fit your argument, there's alot more to it than that. It's not a matter of simple manners (although I agree with you on that aspect). The trouble makers were arrested. What are you suggesting that the French government do with the rioters?
    "In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality." - Karl Marx on Capitalism
    Under the patronage of the venerable Marshal Qin. Proud member of the house of Sybian.

    Proud member of the Australian-New Zealand Beer Appreciation Society (ANZBAS)

  11. #11
    Darth Wong's Avatar Pit Bull
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    4,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion
    Never aspire to something that is impossible to achieve. You will always fall short and that is even worse. The greatest results are setting realistic goals, achieving them, and then going from there.
    I hope you're not a Christian, because Christ's teachings are a fine example of setting goals which are realistically impossible to achieve.
    You mean besides the fact that all "offensive" names are being changed and that now it is easier for an "underrepresented" minority to get a job than it would be for a Caucasian or East Asian?
    Why is it bad to stop using offensive terms? There was a time that white people openly referred to black people as ":wub:" and "coons" in public, but they stopped because that was offensive. I suppose this change was a bad thing?

    As for affirmative action, the rationale is that the playing field is tilted toward the white folk, so it's needed to even the playing field. I suppose you could argue that AA would no longer be necessary once racist hiring practices are eliminated, but that leads to the debate about whether racist hiring practices have in fact been eliminated.
    How about the fact that it it totally okay for an entire city to riot violently for days on end as long as "underrepresented minorities" are doing it (LA, Paris)?
    Since when is it "totally okay" for this to happen? Please give me the names of mainstream media personalities who were saying it was "totally okay".
    The whole appeasement policy with immigrant discontent in France is flawed because it reverses the immigrant/native relationship. A native is born to a country and thus bound to it. If they feel something is wrong, they have the right as citizens to complain. Immigrants have no such right, especially not to complain violently. Their very decision to immigrate implies that they accept the rules of their adopted country. It's an unspoken contract signed by all immigrants. If they don't like the country, they have the choice of not going. If the grow to not like it, they have the choice of leaving.
    What policy would you prefer? They sent in police to try and restore order; what else should they be doing? And what does this have to do with "liberal extremism"?
    To put this is more everday way, would you ever go to a guest's house and throw a violent tantrum because your tea wasn't served correctly? If you were to do that, would you guests simply chastise themselves and promise you better tea in the future? Because that's exactly what the French government did. And I suspect that the other Western European governments would have done the same.

    This is liberal extremism.
    You're blaming liberals for the behaviour of uneducated immigrant Muslims in France? How does that add up?
    My point is that people are afraid to speak their minds should it go against the PC dogma. Any deviation from it and you can be sure to be thrown into any number of generic "conservative" or "fundamentalist" bins where no one will ever listen to you.
    My point is that people are afraid to speak their minds should it go against the conservative dogma. Any deviation from it and you can be sure to be thrown into any number of generic "liberal" or "left-wing" bins where no one will ever listen to you.
    I mean, the people on this forum are able to flaunt the PC rules because we're online, but how many of you would say the same thing to strangers in real life?
    I mean, the people on this forum are able to flaunt the conservative rules because we're online, but how many of you would say the same thing to strangers in real life?

    Yes, I have a life outside the Internet and Rome Total War
    "Oedipus ruined a great sex life by asking too many questions" - Stephen Colbert
    Under the kind patronage of Seleukos

  12. #12
    Ecthelion's Avatar Great Ramen Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The land beyond the River Styx
    Posts
    1,304

    Default

    Why is it bad to stop using offensive terms? There was a time that white people openly referred to black people as ":wub:" and "coons" in public, but they stopped because that was offensive. I suppose this change was a bad thing?
    The reason I put "offensive" in quotations is because the terms that are termed as such nowadays are totally benign. Things like "white boards" or even "Merry Christmas" have all been called into question. They haven't been outright banned, but I'd love to see a newscaster wish his or her viewers a "Merry Christmas" instead of the PC Nazified "Happy Holidays".

    As for affirmative action, the rationale is that the playing field is tilted toward the white folk, so it's needed to even the playing field. I suppose you could argue that AA would no longer be necessary once racist hiring practices are eliminated, but that leads to the debate about whether racist hiring practices have in fact been eliminated.
    Yeah, I seem to remember someone saying the same thing. Umm... Jesse Jackson? A man who fathers illegitamate children while preaching Christian family values? I'd LOVE for someone to explain to me once and for all exactly HOW the "playing field is tilted towards whites". Just because white people get more money than blacks doesn't mean the whole world is being unfair towards blacks. Sorry, but correlation does NOT imply causation.

    Since when is it "totally okay" for this to happen? Please give me the names of mainstream media personalities who were saying it was "totally okay".
    Obviously no one said exactly that it was "totally okay". But the media lacked the guts to say what was really happening in LA. I mean for the love of God Rodney King was a criminal, do you really want some drugged up guy going down the freeway at 90 mph? The fact that many black men in the community getting up in arms (literally) over such an issue is illogical. Even if the police used excessive force, there is no reason to go around destroying everything.

    As for the situation in France, Chirac needed to say two things: "then leave". I'm sorry, but the "love it or leave it" rule is both logical and proper, especially if you're an immigrant. I mean, if you hate the country so much, then why are you still here?

    You're blaming liberals for the behaviour of uneducated immigrant Muslims in France? How does that add up?
    Yes I am. No one can deny that Europe is on a liberal track. The immigrant population of Paris rioted because they knew that they could do so without the French government pulling a Charles Martel the Hammer on them. Decades of laxity bred weeks of anarchy.

    My point is that people are afraid to speak their minds should it go against the conservative dogma. Any deviation from it and you can be sure to be thrown into any number of generic "liberal" or "left-wing" bins where no one will ever listen to you.
    Really, sort of like how people don't listen to CNN, BBC, Jesse and Al, John Stewart, freaking Sean Penn? Oh yeah, the entire liberal media is just totally ignored while conservatives are listened to by everyone.

    America barely has any liberals, nevermind extremist liberals.
    What?! Have you turned on the TV lately? Seen a guy called John Stewart?

    Your simplifying the issue so it can fit your argument, there's alot more to it than that. It's not a matter of simple manners (although I agree with you on that aspect). The trouble makers were arrested. What are you suggesting that the French government do with the rioters?
    How about deportation? Don't like the country, well then don't come here.
    This is my signature. Isn't it awesome?

  13. #13
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY, US
    Posts
    6,521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion
    What?! Have you turned on the TV lately? Seen a guy called John Stewart?
    Jon Stewart is probably a little bit left-wing, but he's no liberal and certainly not extremist.

    Yes I am. No one can deny that Europe is on a liberal track. The immigrant population of Paris rioted because they knew that they could do so without the French government pulling a Charles Martel the Hammer on them. Decades of laxity bred weeks of anarchy.
    Actually, the French government remained intact during the riots.
    Last edited by Atheist Peace; December 17, 2005 at 01:32 PM.

  14. #14
    Lord Tomyris's Avatar Cheshire Cat
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Great Britain
    Posts
    8,720

    Default

    I'm about as Conservative as they come- I'm more often than not at odds with the liberals I know...


    Ex-Quaestor of TWC: Resigned 7th May 2004

  15. #15

    Default

    liberal extremism...


    i personally think we should see a little more conservatism in some elements of our political agenda...
    but by no means are we going to liberal extremes...
    i mean come on, our government recently tried to implement detention without trial, and is working on national ID cards, neither of which are extremely liberal policies from britains supposedly left wing party...

    i honestly don;t think any extremist groups influence politics anywhere, with the exception of the christian right in america and their domiance of the republican party...

    the powerful left wing lobbying groups aren't nearly as extreme in europe...

    as for political correctness... i'd say thats not so much a case of liberal extremism as cases of liberal appeasement blown up into major cases of urban legends.
    afterall, america is just as much subject to PC as britain is, and america has a rep president backed by a rep senate

  16. #16
    Darth Wong's Avatar Pit Bull
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    4,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion
    The reason I put "offensive" in quotations is because the terms that are termed as such nowadays are totally benign. Things like "white boards" or even "Merry Christmas" have all been called into question. They haven't been outright banned, but I'd love to see a newscaster wish his or her viewers a "Merry Christmas" instead of the PC Nazified "Happy Holidays".
    You mean the same "Happy Holidays" that Christians used to use in the 1950s, because Christians celebrated two holidays (Christmas and New Year) at this time of year? It is a conservative LIE that "Happy Holidays" represents some sort of secular PC assault on Christmas. Happy Holidays includes Christmas.
    Yeah, I seem to remember someone saying the same thing. Umm... Jesse Jackson? A man who fathers illegitamate children while preaching Christian family values? I'd LOVE for someone to explain to me once and for all exactly HOW the "playing field is tilted towards whites". Just because white people get more money than blacks doesn't mean the whole world is being unfair towards blacks. Sorry, but correlation does NOT imply causation.
    So ... you dismiss the idea of racism directed against blacks because Jesse Jackson fathers illegitimate children? Or do you dismiss it because you believe the only evidence for racism is an income correlation with ethnicity? Would you amend your position if it could be shown that there was other evidence for racism in America?
    Obviously no one said exactly that it was "totally okay". But the media lacked the guts to say what was really happening in LA. I mean for the love of God Rodney King was a criminal, do you really want some drugged up guy going down the freeway at 90 mph? The fact that many black men in the community getting up in arms (literally) over such an issue is illogical. Even if the police used excessive force, there is no reason to go around destroying everything.
    If the media covered up the fact that Rodney King was a criminal, how did you find out about it? Could it be that you're just spin-doctoring the whole situation like mad, and that there was no "liberal extremism" in evidence? The media has an agenda, but it's not what you think. It's called RATINGS. You've been listening to far too many right-wing ideologues. Open your eyes to the truth: the media is concerned about the same thing that any other business is concerned about, and that's profit. They don't sensationalize stories because of "liberal extremism"; they do it for the shareholders. I can't believe I even need to explain this, it's so painfully obvious.
    As for the situation in France, Chirac needed to say two things: "then leave". I'm sorry, but the "love it or leave it" rule is both logical and proper, especially if you're an immigrant. I mean, if you hate the country so much, then why are you still here?
    You believe that none of the rioters were born in France? Would you amend your position if it turned out that many of them were, in fact, born in France?
    Yes I am. No one can deny that Europe is on a liberal track. The immigrant population of Paris rioted because they knew that they could do so without the French government pulling a Charles Martel the Hammer on them. Decades of laxity bred weeks of anarchy.
    So what France needed was an oppressive police state? Excellent solution.
    Really, sort of like how people don't listen to CNN, BBC, Jesse and Al, John Stewart, freaking Sean Penn? Oh yeah, the entire liberal media is just totally ignored while conservatives are listened to by everyone.
    So, in order to prove that the media is run by "liberal extremists", you name a bunch of media personalities and outlets, without producing a shred of evidence that they are, in fact, liberal extremists. Interesting.

    Yes, I have a life outside the Internet and Rome Total War
    "Oedipus ruined a great sex life by asking too many questions" - Stephen Colbert
    Under the kind patronage of Seleukos

  17. #17
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion
    How about deportation? Don't like the country, well then don't come here.
    How can you deport second, third and fourth generation immigrants who are full French citizens? They wouldn't even have citizenships in thier parents countries' therefore they wouldn't even be accepted into these countries even if the French government tried to deport them.
    "In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality." - Karl Marx on Capitalism
    Under the patronage of the venerable Marshal Qin. Proud member of the house of Sybian.

    Proud member of the Australian-New Zealand Beer Appreciation Society (ANZBAS)

  18. #18
    Ecthelion's Avatar Great Ramen Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The land beyond the River Styx
    Posts
    1,304

    Default

    True, many of the protesters were Muslim men born in France. But! Consider this:

    The London bombers were second generation Muslims born and raise in Britain. They were not living in any Muslim ghetto as those in Paris were and they were considered "assimilated" Muslims. Now, if even these "assimilated" Muslims are capable of such treasonous acts, what do you think of the loyalties of those unassmiliated Muslims in Paris?

    They may have been born in France, but their hearts lie in the Muslim realms. How many of them do you really think would lay their lives on the line in defense of France? These men live in culturally insulated Muslim ghettos. Essentially a little piece of Algeria/Moracco/ or wherever in the middle of Paris.

    And if your heart is not committed to a country, then you have no right to complain about it and all the right to leave.

    I can hardly believe those of you who are arguing that the American media is not mostly liberal. They don't call it the "liberal media" for nothing you know. I'm just saying that it's getting to a point where it's be liberal or be ignored. It's already like that in Europe.
    This is my signature. Isn't it awesome?

  19. #19
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion
    The London bombers were second generation Muslims born and raise in Britain. They were not living in any Muslim ghetto as those in Paris were and they were considered "assimilated" Muslims. Now, if even these "assimilated" Muslims are capable of such treasonous acts, what do you think of the loyalties of those unassmiliated Muslims in Paris?
    So it is a question of Islam, I have yet to deicde whether Islam is a aggresive religion, but I disagree with your hypothesis. What drove the London bombers to commits these act was their belief that Islam demanded that of them, what drove the Paris rioters was just plain stupidity. I very much doubt it has anything to do with religion, comparing the the London bombers to the Paris rioters is like comparing apples and oranges. There is no connection.

    They may have been born in France, but their hearts lie in the Muslim realms. How many of them do you really think would lay their lives on the line in defense of France? These men live in culturally insulated Muslim ghettos. Essentially a little piece of Algeria/Moracco/ or wherever in the middle of Paris.
    Do you really think these alcohol loving, womanising, gangster wanna bes were motivated by Islam?

    And if your heart is not committed to a country, then you have no right to complain about it and all the right to leave.
    That is a very simple statement, what if you have been discriminated against? what if you were treated like slaves? The problem in France is that there was alot of things that were swept under the rug, that came out during the Paris riots, it's the same with most riots. A spontaneous release of frustration and anger that has been building up over a period of time.

    I can hardly believe those of you who are arguing that the American media is not mostly liberal. They don't call it the "liberal media" for nothing you know. I'm just saying that it's getting to a point where it's be liberal or be ignored. It's already like that in Europe.
    I have been ignored many times for my liberal views, I don't really see any truth in what your saying. It really depends on who you are dealing with.
    "In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality." - Karl Marx on Capitalism
    Under the patronage of the venerable Marshal Qin. Proud member of the house of Sybian.

    Proud member of the Australian-New Zealand Beer Appreciation Society (ANZBAS)

  20. #20
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY, US
    Posts
    6,521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion
    True, many of the protesters were Muslim men born in France. But! Consider this:

    The London bombers were second generation Muslims born and raise in Britain. They were not living in any Muslim ghetto as those in Paris were and they were considered "assimilated" Muslims. Now, if even these "assimilated" Muslims are capable of such treasonous acts, what do you think of the loyalties of those unassmiliated Muslims in Paris?

    They may have been born in France, but their hearts lie in the Muslim realms. How many of them do you really think would lay their lives on the line in defense of France? These men live in culturally insulated Muslim ghettos. Essentially a little piece of Algeria/Moracco/ or wherever in the middle of Paris.

    And if your heart is not committed to a country, then you have no right to complain about it and all the right to leave.
    Actually, everyone has the right to complain about any country they want.

    I can hardly believe those of you who are arguing that the American media is not mostly liberal. They don't call it the "liberal media" for nothing you know. I'm just saying that it's getting to a point where it's be liberal or be ignored. It's already like that in Europe.
    Yeah, in america you have to be liberal or be ignored, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Have you ever actually seen the american media for more than five minutes? Do you have any idea of American politics and how incredibly right-wing it is? Or do you have no idea what you're talking about?

    And yes, you're right, it isn't called the "liberal media" for nothing. It is called the liberal media because conservatives like to propogate a left-wing bias in the media. But guess what, it doesn't exist!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •