Maggie_T
03-27-2007, 05:16 PM
One of the bleatings (comments) was that liberals are more for freedom than conservatives. LOL. I just love it when liberals say that . The question such statement begs is, of course, WHAT freedom? If we're talking about the freedom to have sex with anyone, or anything, that moves, then yes, liberals are for that. If we're talking about freedom from any form of responsibiity, then yes, liberals are for that. In other words, liberals are against the very things that constitute genuine freedom. What they are for is anarchy. And that has nothing to do with freedom. Only problem is liberals were never able to tell the difference between anarchy and freedom.
Liberals are all for big government, Nanny Government. Now what can be more contrary to freedom than that? Liberals DETEST personal responsibility. That's why they shun it completely. Liberals are never responsible for anything. Someone else is always to blame for the things they screw up. It's either their parents, or Bush, or "the system" , etc., etc.
That is why liberals are so hysterically against the 2nd Amendment. Because nothing demands more responsibility than the ownership of a handgun. Liberals detest that. And so they want Nanny Government to regulate the 2nd Amendment. Not so much because they believe that guns kill ( as opposed to those who handle guns), but because they cannot face the responsiblity that comes with owning a handgun, much less the responsibility that comes with using one. Even in self defense.
I could go on and on for ever, but I'm sure even the most obtuse will understand what I'm trying to say. Evan Sayet it right on the mark. And that's why all liberals will deny he is. They cannot tolerate being confronted with their own mistakes. That would imply personal responsiblity.
Etaoin
03-27-2007, 06:17 PM
One of the bleatings (comments) was that liberals are more for freedom than conservatives. LOL. I just love it when liberals say that . The question such statement begs is, of course, WHAT freedom? If we're talking about the freedom to have sex with anyone, or anything, that moves, then yes, liberals are for that. If we're talking about freedom from any form of responsibiity, then yes, liberals are for that. In other words, liberals are against the very things that constitute genuine freedom. What they are for is anarchy. And that has nothing to do with freedom. Only problem is liberals were never able to tell the difference between anarchy and freedom.
Liberals are all for big government, Nanny Government. Now what can be more contrary to freedom than that? Liberals DETEST personal responsibility. That's why they shun it completely. Liberals are never responsible for anything. Someone else is always to blame for the things they screw up. It's either their parents, or Bush, or "the system" , etc., etc.
That is why liberals are so hysterically against the 2nd Amendment. Because nothing demands more responsibility than the ownership of a handgun. Liberals detest that. And so they want Nanny Government to regulate the 2nd Amendment. Not so much because they believe that guns kill ( as opposed to those who handle guns), but because they cannot face the responsiblity that comes with owning a handgun, much less the responsibility that comes with using one. Even in self defense.
I could go on and on for ever, but I'm sure even the most obtuse will understand what I'm trying to say. Evan Sayet it right on the mark. And that's why all liberals will deny he is. They cannot tolerate being confronted with their own mistakes. That would imply personal responsiblity.
I'm in love....I've found my new mate, Maggie. No one could ever supplant my wife, but you think the same ! You were a bit verbose, but correct, Liberals DO NOT THINK, THEY EMOTE!
CONSERVATIVE HERO
03-28-2007, 08:14 PM
Good video. It's not anything I hadn't already concluded on my own long ago however. I've written more than one short post on another site (which unfortunately did away with their forums so I lost my entire history for reference) about how the left's bread and butter is the manipulation of terminology. The word "discrimination" especially. I'm definately a fan. Who is he by the way?
One thing in particular that stood out very soon was his mention that even pushing vulgarity was part of their agenda. Which instantly brought to mind...
January 10, 1963 Current Communist Goals
"Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV."If you ever read the whole list it's basically the platform of today's democratic party listed word for word.
Anyway, I started this quite some time ago (well over a year) but never finished it. It's a really rough draft and probably doesn't flow very well as I was cutting and pasting huge portions of text from multiple much shorter posts where it was originally posted.
The bastardization of noble terms.
How The left fooled them all.
Understanding leftism 101
The First and foremost rule when dealing with marxists: No term used by a marxist means what it means.
"I certainly don't believe in discriminating against anyone on the basis of color, religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, etc. etc."
These are the words I heard from someone not so long ago.
I do discriminate. There's nothing wrong with discrimination (telling the difference between things) in and of itself. I know now that people today don't even realize what they're saying. They're oblivious to the fact they've already surrendered by merely adopting this philosophy.
I suppose what I find so disturbing is that people cannot even see that the outlawing of "discrimination," is in reality the outlawing of choice and the establishment of total dominion over thought. Not only are we required to follow the new PC order by law, we aren't even allowed to acknowledge there's a difference between red and blue if they say so. "You will say and believe that red and blue are the same, or you are guilty of discrimination. To the gulag with you!" Think it's a joke? The initial phases have already begun. You will say that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, or you will be found guilty of hate, and soon fined/jailed for "hatespeech."
Simply look at the Maryland Department of Transportation Secretary who was fired for saying that homosexual behavior was "deviant." An openly homosexual colleague expressed his happiness with the termination, and stated, "To defend this point of view is beyond the pale."
"Beyond the pale." Think about that for a second. Take a moment to fully realize the implications of the terminology being used. Not only were this man's comments "beyond the pale," but so too was his "point of view." Meaning as of now in Maryland, not agreeing with homosexuality is both unprotected speech and thought.
This is standard leftist pyschological manipulation. Marxists push their agendas under "rights/liberty/anti-discrimination" banners because it's a highly effective means of advancing their goals through the uniformed and ignorant masses. It allows them to easily coerce the gullible and indifferent. By pushing your agenda as a "rights" issue, well, who would want to be "anti-rights/liberty?" The casual onlooker simply accepts virtually anything that claims it's pro-rights/liberty. It also allows them to villanize anyone who opposes them as an enemy of "rights/liberty" and guilty of discrimination/bigotry. I frequently see leftist who outright support tyrants in the name of "peace." Just look at the middle east. The left supports Hezbollah by opposing Israel's "excessive" use of force. "Peace" is now the shield, and anyone who opposes the left can and will be villified as an opponent/enemy not of Hezbollah, or terrorism, but of "peace."
This is a tactic very typical of the left, this bastardization of terminology, in fact it's the bread and butter of the leftist modus operandi. Rights, liberty, freedom, choice, tolerance, equality, diversity, etc., can never be taken at face value when used by the leftist. Discrimination too as a word has been bastardized. Discrimination was corrupted by it's constant association with racism (the word that should be used), and now most people consider the two synonomous. When someone is accused of discrimination, it implies racism and/or shameful hatred, and the marxists use this pretense to pass "anti-discrimination" laws which are seemingly directed at preventing such. They are in fact not. It's true applications are far more broad and tyrannical as it's in reality outlawing both senses of the word. I discriminate based upon race. I discern that a black man is not a white man. I am not racist however. I understand that a black man is just as capable as a white man.
In virtually every leftist statement is found a collage of misconstrument, bastardized terminology, and outright deception. I frequently hear things like...
1: "Gay's are being denied equal rights/the right to marry."
Fact: Homosexuals have equal uniform access to marriage as heterosexuals. They have just as much ability to marry a member of the opposite sex as I do. I too am prohibited from marrying a member of the same sex. I therefore have no more rights/access to marriage than they, nor do they have any less rights/access to marriage than I. Secondly, there is no right to homosexual marriage. One cannot be denied a right thay've never had under our form of government, nor deprived of something to which they are not entitled. It's akin to NAMBLA saying that pedophiles are being denied equal rights/the right to marry children.
This is proven by their own demands. What do they want? They don't want equal marriage/rights (they already have this), they want "gay" marriage/rights. As in rights/an institution that don't currently exist, a special standard just for them catered specifically to their group. Homosexuals are no longer bound to the same uniform rights we all have, they get to make up their own.
2: "We cannot legislate bigotry."
Fact: All law is legislated bigotry. Laws against murder, theft, rape, child molestation, etc., are the result of the people being bigoted against such behavior. Not to mention homosexual behavior has always in this country (until recently) been a violation of law.
3: "There's no constitutional authority to ban gay marriage."
Fact: Again, homosexual behavior was traditionally a violation of law, and was harshly punished. Homosexual behavior, much less marriage, was never allowed or acknowledged by our laws or form of government. It has thus always been, since the nation's inception, banned. The real question is, where's the constitutional authority to allow it?
I see person after person fall for this ploy. By simply getting you to debate extinctionist marriage/rights with them, they win. Why? Because they've gotten you to acknowledge and factor into society and government something that was never passed through legislation by the people. They got you to advance their agenda for them. There is no debate over extinctionist rights/marriage, because neither one exist, period. Virtually over night with a publicity stunt and the manipulation of terminology... the entire nation basically was tricked into not only acknowledging but practically institutionalizing "gay-rights/marriage."
The left seems to have been extremely successful in making people forget that "discrimination" and "bigotry" can be good. I discriminate against pedophiles, and I am also bigoted against pedophilia. My mind is completely closed off to it. I will not even hear out a pedophile who tries to argue in favor of or urge understanding toward pedophilia. That's what it's all about you see. By accusing you of discrimination and bigotry, by calls to be open-minded, they're manipulating you into listening to them, hearing them out..... allowing yourself to be influenced.
If you will listen you can be influenced, if you can be influenced they can advance their agenda. They win. There's a strategy behind it all. It's all psychological manipulation designed specifically to bring about acceptance where there is none and at the very least silence/stifle resistance. Leftists often aggressively push the target to be "open-minded" when selling their ideology. Basically, be more accepting of what I believe (you can't sell if the buyer's closed off to the product). They also through such terms set up a system of psychological reward/punishment. It's not only about getting you to be more receptive or just listen, it's about making you feel like a better person for accepting/listening as well. Open-minded people = good people, and open-minded people agree with me. If this isn't intially successful, the person will generally be neg'd (portrayed negatively) into being more accepting. Should someone support homosexuality the negatives are easy and numerous to point out, such as pointing out it's perversity for starters, the off the chart promiscuity and wildly disproportionate HIV rate amongst homosexuals, etc (the left has no "equivalent-negatives" to cite against opponents of homosexuality). Since there is no genuine negative to one being opposed to homosexuality, one must be fabricated, such as "bigotry," "discrimination," and "hate." These are the left's equivalent-negatives. If you oppose homsoexuality, you're a bigot, and calling the ideologically unsteady and uninformed such things repeatedly will often force them into a far more accepting posture. Now the target wants to prove that he is not these nasty sounding words, and they'll do this by taking on a more "open" and less dismissive attitude (at the very least it puts them on the defensive, the opponent is forced to spend the debate disproving he's the nasty names applied to him, leaving the homo advocate free to steamroll his arguement through).
I remember one conversation with a woman who tried the above almost step for step in order to get me to accept homosexuality. She asked me if I was open minded. I told her I was both open-minded and closed-minded. This confused her (leftists generally like to think of themselves as only open-minded). Once my opposition to homosexuality was made clear, she accused me of not being "open minded" and informed me that I should read more about homosexuality, as according to her she had spoken to and knew alot of homosexuals and had "read alot" about it and was therefore able to form a more enlightened opinion on the issue. I told her that being closed-minded can be a good thing. She disagreed. I easily illustrated this. I asked her if I should be more open minded to molesting children. She refused to answer. I asked her if I should be more open minded to raping women. She refused to answer. I then asked what would be the appropriate amount of literature I need to read, the number of raptists and pedophiles to whom I must speak in order to hear their opinion on the matter, before I could make an informed and intelligent decision that pedophilia and rape are wrong? She refused to answer. I told her that she was closed minded also. She strongly disagreed. I informed her that by refusing to consider the possibility that homosexuality is wrong she was being closed-minded. She got downright nasty at this point, called me names and swore at me, and basically told me that she would not speak to me anymore.
The typical tolerant leftist.
By not accepting homosexuality I was guilty of bigotry and discrimination, ordinary practices for any rational human being, but to the leftist the greatest of evils. Why? Because the leftist state of mind is psychosis, literally, and to be practiced requires the extirpation of logic on the part of it's adheret. One literally must surrender sanity. Things such as discernment must be wiped from the human thought process in order to achieve a world view for a reality that does not and cannot exist. One of leftism's fundamental laws is that no one thing is worse or better than another. There is no good or bad. All is relative. Thus discrimination (telling the difference bewteen two things) is possibly the greatest act of heresy.
By outlawing "discrimination," which has been ever more corrupted from it's original intent and broadened to include more and more things over time, they have not only effectively banned opposition, but effectively reality as well. We have equal application of law (laws apply to each person in equal uniform fashion), but that does not (despite their misconstruement) make all beliefs, philosophies, and lifestyles equal. Pedophilia is not a lifestyle/orientation equal to the traditional standard of heterosexuality, thus our laws discriminate against it, and apply to every citizen in an equal uniform fashion. Murder is not equal to not comitting murder, thus our laws discriminate against the practice and its practitioners etc. So too have they for the bulk of our history done so with homosexuality.
"That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years." - MAINE
"Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th detestable crime." - GEORGIA
"That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons. [And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor." - PENNSYLVANIA
By outlawing "discrimination" and deluding a people into believing every practice and lifestyle is equal, they accomplish a mental subjugation of the populace, and may then freely advance their goals within a people made lemmings. The notion that I can't discriminate against someone beheading people for allah, as that would be discriminating against him, is asinine. But that's literally what we're being asked to do by the left. You see Europe presently falling to satanic decapitators specifically as a result of this instituionalized psychosis. They won't even lift a finger as their women are raped and their citizens are terrorized into subjugation because they look at these villains and think, they're [I]no different than we are.
By convincing a people their government and laws were founded upon a "neutral/impartial" principle that must respect all beliefs, philosophies, and lifestyles equally (or more accurately, discern no difference between them), a nation/people/government made to believe that the invader has just as much right to rule and govern as they do (even more actually as they're a minority who deserve "special" consideration/protection) offers no resistance as their national "identity" is overwritten. We see working before our eyes the marxist nation killer machine. Calculated, methodical,... effecient.
What they're really doing with their anti-discrmination campaigns is getting people to convert to a standard of discrimination they deem acceptable. One that will allow them to conquer us by coercing us into pacifist surrender of our traditional values and culture.
What I find the most ironic is that leftists themselves are almost always discriminatory/bigoted against CHRISTians, capitalists, America, religion, masculinity, morals, etc., and never fail to be completely oblivious to their own hypocrisy (not to mention proving they're certainly not any "better" than us). Calls for tolerence, open-mindedness, etc., are hollow (as seen with the duscussion I described above). In short, they don't by any means practice what they preach, and adopting their calls to end "discrimination" is in reality a means of getting the masses to adopt a different/opposing set/model of discrimination and bigotry that works to their benefit. Everything they support is labeled rights, liberty, freedom, choice, tolerance, equality, diversity, etc. They're constantly sending the subconscious message that "everything they support = good", and by labeling the opposition "hate" the message is sent any who oppose us = bad. The reliquishment of our culture and values is for the better, good, a "progression."
Hence they push homosexuality under a "rights" label. It serves to obscure the filth they're pushing by redirecting the issue into an abstract debate on legal philosophy (though anyone with a shred of sense knows those who made our government would have never even for an instant humored the notion of sanctioning such filth), because "gay-rights" is more marketable than the "pro-AIDS-infested-homosexual-sodomy" party, and by claiming themselves "freedom fighters" and opponents "hatemongers/racists/ bigots" many are made to believe they = good & the opposition = bad.
Their template, however, is no better by any stretch of the imagination. It's just marketed under feel-good titles to make people believe it is. Simply take racism, discrimination, bigotry, etc., as we understand them, and move them to the opposite side of the spectrum, and you have the leftist's template. A CHRISTian society becomes an anti-CHRISTian society. A moral, masculine, heterosexual society becomes an immoral, effiminate, homosexual society. A nation of Americans suddenly becomes a nation of immigrants. A capitalism becomes a communism. Etc.
I do discriminate period, and especially based on sexual orientation. If people cannot see how laws prohibiting discrimination based on something as broad, undefined, and all inclusive as "sexual orientation" coming to pass in essence means anything goes, we may not treat the perverse differently from the non-perverse, we may not even discern there's a difference between the two, that it's a clear sign of something very sinister ongoing... we're in serious trouble.
I will continue to go on discriminating. I will continue to discern that homosexuality is foul and harmful to it's practitioners and society as a whole. There will be no adoption of pinko principles here. The government will not tell me I must see depravity and goodness as no different.
DoctorDoom
04-02-2007, 09:18 AM
I would need a copy of the speech since my modem does NOT stream video. Don't suppose one is mentioned anywhere?Sounds like you're on dialup. It's over 68 megabytes, ergo you'd spend hours downloading it.
As others said, a transcript doesn't appear to be available. However, there's a middle ground. The audio is available from Heritage for download as an MP3 file. Right-click this link (http://multimedia.heritage.org/mp3/Lehrman-030507a.mp3) and select "Save link as" or whatever your browser's equivalent is. It's 20,426,040 bytes, but it's far smaller than the video, and you can listen to it once it's finished downloading.
Fast foward to 7:30 to skip the intros.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.