usmarine2005 wrote:
Skruples wrote:
usmarine2005 wrote:
^^^^^^^
So if I said liberal there, you people would shit your pants and their would be like four fucking angry responses within like two minutes of each other. But this is acceptable?
Roger that.
Liberals Fail.
Liberalism is a disease.
The difference? I know Spark isn't seriously comparing anyone to Hitler. He quoted Cameron's exaggerated comparison to what the OP said and then further exxageratingly compared that quote to something naziesque. I have seen many of Spark's posts and it is my opinion that he is one of the more intelligent people in this section. I cannot say the same for you.
I get the feeling Lowing was serious, and that he does, in fact, harbor a belief that 'liberals' want terrorists to attack again, or for soldiers to die or for the president to look bad solely so that they can make themselves look better. I get the feeling that you were not being facetious when you say that "liberalism is a disease" and that you believe that people you define as liberals hold opinions that are not worth considering, which is ironic considering that in your former (and Lowing's current) profession you were, in part, tasked with upholding everyones right to believe whatever they feel like. I can assure you that I have never met a left-leaning person that has ever intimated that they would like anything bad happen to either the United States as a whole or to any one or more of its citizens. Neither have I met any right-leaning people with similar wishes.
I was, in fact, about to begin writing a rebuttal to Gorillatactic's post in agreement with my own, pointing out that he was, in fact, doing something akin to what Lowing had done, only in reverse, but I then realized it was 5 A.M and my time would be better spent sleeping. Sparks post wasn't worth rebutting since it wasn't serious, though you can be assured if Spark had said something along the lines of "It is my belief that the conservatives secretly harbor a desire for another terrorist attack on the Unites States so their agenda will be bolstered by public support," I would not have sat idly by.
I have the sinking feeling that the message of this post will be entirely lost on its intended audience, however. The conservative/liberal divide is entirely unbeneficial to the country as a whole, and I have little respect for anyone who forms generalized opinions about large groups of people based solely on a single word that they are associated with.
Not sure what your point is, or what it has to do with me. If I had just typed the world liberal, some of you have a stroke and start typing walls of text. But the use of neocon is just fine and nobody jumps on it......wonder why. If you cannot see that then you need to spend more time in this section.
Because neocon is a very specific set of values, based on the musings of William Kristol et al. The neoconservative officers are currently a majority in the top positions of our government. They have a very well-defined agenda and are not adverse to admitting it. It can be summed up as "Might makes right, and America is the mightiest". Neo-con values, fusing corporatism, militarism, media control, and nationalism also run very paralell to the same agenda espoused by European fascist movements in the 1920-'40s Spain, Argentina, Germany, Italy, and yes, even the US at the time (though they did most honestly call it "fascism").
Most believers in the neo-conservative movement are either ideological leaders OR authoritarian followers.
Read "It Can't Happen Here" written in 1937 for a glimpse into that time period in American history.
We can also specifically target "Bushies", which combine neo-conservative ideas with a belief in the "unitary executive".
We can target "fundies", which are religiously oriented right-wingers.
Right-wingers are an amalgamation of the right, a coalition that has been in the works since the 1970's that has fused Libertarian businessmen, fundamentalist Christians, and militant nationalists into a tight coalition and voting block.
Authoritarian followers, of which many can be found here, are almost entirely "conservative" in nature, having a victim complex (the liberal media is out to smear XXX!, the liberals want to take away our right to XXX!), generally can't get past their own thought divides ("Can't abort babies, must kill all muslims!", "Gays are bad, blow me for a quarter?"), and tend to take an unreasonably paranoid look at things without actual cause ("The Latino muslims are coming!"), meanwhile ignoring factual causes. Everything can be defined as good (our side) or evil (everyone else) in an arguement. Faith/belief > evidence/procdure. Truth > Fact.
"Liberal" is a very very broad term, and used in a derogatory manner by the various groups on the right to basically mean "anyone that isn't them". Now, if you would be so kind as to specifically target which liberals you refer to, it wouldn't be seen as entirely retarded. Personally, I'd like to be a civil libertarian or anarcho-syndicalist if you don't mind. The propoganda wing of the right continuously tries to channel liberals into narrow views and set up strawmen. "The liberals think this..." and "The liberals are like this..." and "The liberals support this..." when in fact there is no "quintissential liberal", it does not exist. Whereas you can enter an evangelical church and find fundies that will agree with each other on everything, you won't find the same at say, a DailyKos rally.