CC is Liberal

[PLAYER57832]

What we can learn here is that conservatives are quieter than liberals, a silent majority in fact, not unlike real life...

No, this is definitely not true. For quite a while, conservatives heavily dominated here. Several would complain quite vocally any time anyone disagreed with them. I am not saying Liberals were "innocent", but liberals were far, far more likely to argue with/refute conservatives who mouthed off. Conservatives were far more likely to decide "this person is a jerk who should not be allowed to speak" when someone plainly disagreed. This happened in thread after thread, regarding global warming, homosexuality, tolerance, etc. I barely managed to skim by on several occasions. I think the fact that I just don't swear, etc. was the only reason I "escaped" and others did not.

EXCEPT -- I really did not escape. When I tried to join a discussion forum, purported to be open to various sides, I was ousted for, among other reasons, putting forward the "heneous" suggestion that for GM executives to take millions in bonuses (this was pre-bail-out) and then turn around and dock the retiree's health care was not a wonderful thing to do.

[PLAYER57832]

One (related) thing that I always wondered about is the "is there a God Poll" was heavily pro-God. Yet the Godless Heathens and other random Atheists seem to rule this forum. Where are all the 10,000 members of the Jesus Freaks at?

Many people on this site are theist in their way of thinking. They don't ascribe to the doctrines of the Bible, but they probably reason that there is a God. They come from all political points of view as well. Being a theist or even a Christian doesn't mean one is necessarily right-wing in their political principles or how they interpret scripture.

As far as Christians go, Juan....the Bible instructs us to attempt to live at peace with our fellow man as much as possible. I (we) don't always do that, but we've got a lot of people in the JF that do follow that line of thinking. The other thing is that the Bible describes people who don't believe in God as fools. Other verses say that it's folly to try to argue with a fool or you'll end up looking just like him/her. The reason for this is described in Romans 1 where it claims that God's invisible qualities - divine nature & eternal power are clearly made plain so that men are without excuse. So many in the JF probably think it's a waste of time to argue over God's existence. It's already a settled issue in their mind.

Please notice that there's a difference between being a fool and unintelligent. I (we) don't claim that atheists are stupid but rather foolish for denying the obvious. This is why that poster you put on the forums (remember - "Atheism...good enough for these idiots") is bogus. Besides, 3 of those men in the poster weren't atheists and although Lincoln was an atheist as a young man, he may have been in the process of changing his mind before his assasination took place....it's inconclusive because there are quotes from him supporting both sides.

I've tried to reason with people here because I used to be a skeptic, but it's really to no avail because it's more a matter of the will than the intellect. So, would it be better to argue forever, knowing that the atheists here aren't going to change their minds? Sometimes I think that the atheists here are actually hoping that someone can give them answers for questions such as "if God is omnipotent then why doesn't He defeat evil, and why did He allow its existence in the first place". IMO, that's why we have endless thread creations on this subject.

When you refuse to listen to people who disagree, that is not "living in peace", it is denying any possibility that you might be wrong. Yes, the Bible does tell us to hold fast to our faith. HOWEVER, too much of what you and many other conservative decide should not be questioned has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible at all, in reality. In fact, much of what you put forward, particularly when it comes to economics, but also in regards to social issues is quite contrary to the Bible.

[nesterdude]

Is there a correlation between "liberal" and "don't like flame wars"?
I thought all sorts of people posted there.
The word "liberal" seems to mean , "anyone or anything I don't like" sometimes.

liberals love censorship...that's basic

[MeDeFe]

Is there a correlation between "liberal" and "don't like flame wars"?
I thought all sorts of people posted there.
The word "liberal" seems to mean , "anyone or anything I don't like" sometimes.

liberals love censorship...that's basic

I'm a liberal and I don't love censorship. In fact, censorship goes against the very basis of liberalism

[jay_a2j]

CONSERVATIVE Can you guess which side of the isle I play on? CONSERVATIVE I don't think you can call CC liberal. CONSERVATIVE I think if it was, we would all have a diplomat negotiating peace within the game. CONSERVATIVE The "ATTACK" button would say something like "Peace Challanged-Roll Here". CONSERVATIVE There would be a support group for those who lose games and need someone to "talk to" to help them cope with the defeat. CONSERVATIVE Each game would start each player with 20 free men (free government handout) regardless of how may territories you occupy. CONSERVATIVE

[MeDeFe]

CONSERVATIVE Can you guess which side of the isle I play on? CONSERVATIVE I don't think you can call CC liberal. CONSERVATIVE I think if it was, we would all have a diplomat negotiating peace within the game. CONSERVATIVE The "ATTACK" button would say something like "Peace Challanged-Roll Here". CONSERVATIVE There would be a support group for those who lose games and need someone to "talk to" to help them cope with the defeat. CONSERVATIVE Each game would start each player with 20 free men (free government handout) regardless of how may territories you occupy. CONSERVATIVE

You're a constitutional monarchist?

[KoolBak]

lmao....Nice one Head-Banger ;o)

(to ol Jay, above....)

[PLAYER57832]

Is there a correlation between "liberal" and "don't like flame wars"?
I thought all sorts of people posted there.
The word "liberal" seems to mean , "anyone or anything I don't like" sometimes.

liberals love censorship...that's basic

Liberals love censorship???

By any definition usually accepted, the exact opposit is true. Liberals are, by definition, those who like varied thoughts, tolerate varied principals, etc.

I believe you are confusing some misguided attempts at being "pollitically correct" with true liberalism.

[GabonX]

Al Gore and his wife pioneered the parental advisory labels on records. The original intention was to ban certain types of content.

Joseph Lieberman was behind the rating system on video games.

Nancy Pelosi has come out and said she supports the fairness doctrine so that they can have more influence over conservative talk.

The term "liberal" and the politicians who apply it to themselves today have little to do with real liberalism. Today's conservatives are more liberal than todays "liberals" in the true sense of the word.

[thegreekdog]

Liberals love censorship???

No... unless you disagree with them. Then you are a racist, a hick, a rich jerk, or one of the various and sundry names that SultanofSurreal uses on a regular basis. Is that censorship? Nah, but it's definitely marginalization, which is just as bad.

While I will readily acknowledge that many of the conservatives that post on this site lack the, um, free thought that is necessary for intellectual discussion, I will also readily acknowledge that many of the liberals on this site have the same lack of free thought. It's a little bit of MSNBC versus a little bit of Rush Limbaugh.

[spurgistan]

Is there a correlation between "liberal" and "don't like flame wars"?
I thought all sorts of people posted there.
The word "liberal" seems to mean , "anyone or anything I don't like" sometimes.

liberals love censorship...that's basic

The list of commonly banned books totally begs to differ with that over-generalization.

[GabonX]

Let's not forget that the current "liberal" administration in the UK banned Michael Savage from entering the country because he exercised his right to free speech in a way that they didn't like.

His book on the topic is also banned...

[spurgistan]

OK, fine, I see your Michael Savage (a bit reminiscent of Ward Churchill, only nobody likes him) and raise you the 100 most banned books by the American Library Association Check out how many anti-war books there are. I know, we mustn't be filling our kids head with this rubbish.

Sorry, that's the 100 top English-language classics. 42 (the bolded titles) are on the most-banned list.

[Neoteny]

To be fair, I don't know how many liberals on this site supported the whole Savage Fiasco. I don't think I did.

[GabonX]

OK, fine, I see your Michael Savage (a bit reminiscent of Ward Churchill, only nobody likes him) and raise you the 100 most banned books by the American Library Association Check out how many anti-war books there are. I know, we mustn't be filling our kids head with this rubbish.

Sorry, that's the 100 top English-language classics. 42 (the bolded titles) are on the most-banned list.

You're argument is a fallacy.

The fact that some conservatives may support censorship does not mean that liberals don't.

Conservative censorship is a completely unrelated topic.

*edited to include quote*

[thegreekdog]

OK, fine, I see your Michael Savage (a bit reminiscent of Ward Churchill, only nobody likes him) and raise you the 100 most banned books by the American Library Association Check out how many anti-war books there are. I know, we mustn't be filling our kids head with this rubbish.

Sorry, that's the 100 top English-language classics. 42 (the bolded titles) are on the most-banned list.

So, do all conservatives on this website support the banning of the books indicated above?

No?

Really?

I thought all conservatives wanted to ban books...

[GabonX]

To be fair, I don't know how many liberals on this site supported the whole Savage Fiasco. I don't think I did.

There were a number of them.

Like I've said before, there is a difference between liberalism in the traditional sense and the "liberals" of today.

[spurgistan]

OK, fine, I see your Michael Savage (a bit reminiscent of Ward Churchill, only nobody likes him) and raise you the 100 most banned books by the American Library Association Check out how many anti-war books there are. I know, we mustn't be filling our kids head with this rubbish.

Sorry, that's the 100 top English-language classics. 42 (the bolded titles) are on the most-banned list.

So, do all conservatives on this website support the banning of the books indicated above?

No?

Really?

I thought all conservatives wanted to ban books...

This thread has been about "liberals" being the queens of censorship and mind control. Although, I guess seeing as this thread has defined "liberals" as "people who are the queens of censorship and mind control" I should probably just realize that you really can't argue with reflexive definitions.

[thegreekdog]

This thread has been about "liberals" being the queens of censorship and mind control. Although, I guess seeing as this thread has defined "liberals" as "people who are the queens of censorship and mind control" I should probably just realize that you really can't argue with reflexive definitions.

Hmm... I thought we were talking about users of these fora. As far as I can tell, the conservatives who post around here aren't really the stereotypical definition (at least right now, here in 2009) of "conservatives" (i.e. those racist, southern, Christian, warmongering, gun-toting, rich people). Therefore, I wonder how many conservatives that regularly post here actually believe in banning any books at all.

As an alternative, many of the self-confessed liberals around here surely support, for example, the Fairness Doctrine (or, ostensibly, those that support the Fairness Doctrine). Further, a few of the self-confessed liberals on this site actually think that people who don't support universal healthcare are racist (again, this goes to marginalization which is essentially censorship).

[luns101]

When you refuse to listen to people who disagree, that is not "living in peace", it is denying any possibility that you might be wrong.

Oh please, Player! I do not refuse to listen to people who disagree with me. Even if I wanted to it would be impossible because the most vocal individuals on this website either hold to a secular humanist/atheist worldview or some form of liberal political ideology.

There's a difference between rejecting a worldview after having considered it, and not listening to the other side. If you think that I believe that the conservative side of the political spectrum is always correct then you are truly guilty of selectively reading into my posts what you want to see.

HOWEVER, too much of what you and many other conservative decide should not be questioned has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible at all, in reality.

Give me one example of something I've demanded should not be questioned. I was responding to Juan about the existence of God. It had absolutely nothing to do with a Biblical interpretation of economics.

I see how you shifted the topic of discussion there!

In fact, much of what you put forward, particularly when it comes to economics, but also in regards to social issues is quite contrary to the Bible.

I make no apologies to you or any other liberal for holding a position that work is a gift from God that is to be enjoyed, and in it He allows us to be creative and innovative. There is dignity and worth to be enjoyed when it is viewed as a means to provide for our families. I believe it is appropriate to be as self-reliant as much as God blesses one to be without asking the government for assistance. I do not believe in manufactured economic equality that is forced upon people through excessive taxation, by the method of pitting the rich against the poor. I believe that it is inappropriate for the government to over-reach its Biblical mandate to restrain evil and delve into areas of enforcing this economic equality.

But don't worry, I've got people in my family who are staunch liberals (over in West Palm Beach, FL), and I see that they interpret the scriptures to mean that those of us who've been blessed with more have a responsibility to provide for the less fortunate, and they think the government is the vehicle to accomplish that. They've got all the "Yes we can" refrigerator magnets anyone could hope for. It makes for an interesting Thanksgiving every year.

[jonesthecurl]

OK to pick up on just one topic:
Who here would ban books?
Which ones?

I'll start: I've never called for a book to be banned, though there are books which I (when selling books) refused to sell, and felt that both author and publisher should be ashamed of themselves.


How many "libs" called for the banning of The Satanic Verses?

[thegreekdog]

OK to pick up on just one topic:
Who here would ban books?
Which ones?

I'll start: I've never called for a book to be banned, though there are books which I (when selling books) refused to sell, and felt that both author and publisher should be ashamed of themselves.


How many "libs" called for the banning of The Satanic Verses?

No books should be banned. If I don't want to read it... POOF... I don't read it.

[jonesthecurl]

OK to pick up on just one topic:
Who here would ban books?
Which ones?

I'll start: I've never called for a book to be banned, though there are books which I (when selling books) refused to sell, and felt that both author and publisher should be ashamed of themselves.


How many "libs" called for the banning of The Satanic Verses?

No books should be banned. If I don't want to read it... POOF... I don't read it.

Agreed. But do you have kids? It's a bit like the "there's always the "off" button" approach to TV censorship.

[GabonX]

OK to pick up on just one topic:
Who here would ban books?
Which ones?

I'll start: I've never called for a book to be banned, though there are books which I (when selling books) refused to sell, and felt that both author and publisher should be ashamed of themselves.


How many "libs" called for the banning of The Satanic Verses?

Probably a lot because it offended muslims.

Perhaps you meant The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey...

[captainwalrus]

To me a liberal is a person who believes that his way/what he thinks is right and everything else is wrong, but he feels the great need to change shit to his way.

That is a terrible deffination of liberal. There are a ton of concervitives who fit that deffintion. If you were being sarcastic or somethings, I couldn't tell, but at face value you come across as someone who really could not have a reasonable disscussion about anything since you would never actualy listen.