Tom in Lazybrook
Hall of Famer
Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
|
RE: Nigel Farage blasts Angela Merkel to her face in EU Parliament ... again
(11-16-2018 07:38 PM)JRsec Wrote: (11-16-2018 07:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: (11-16-2018 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote: (11-16-2018 05:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: Nobody on the anti-Putin/Trump side trusts anyone on the other to do anything but undercut us. You're either on our side or Putin/Orban's. And there is no freedom for anyone on the other side of the fence. We all know now that to protect our freedoms, our basic liberties, and even our safety/lives, we must ALL do everything we can to stop global nativism.
And even the friggin' EU, a notoriously passive group, has awoken to that reality.
-----
Heck Americans don't prefer American products. Why the heck would Brits? Your assertion that a grateful group of UKIP/BNP fans will immediately go buy a bunch of American products 'just because' is rather dubious.
Urban America subsidizes rural America, not the other way around.
The military argument is kind of oversold, especially in a world where I have more reason to fear 'some random male with a gun and a political agenda', than ISIS. Sure, we need a military. Especially to deploy against Russian expansionism. But no, I see no reason to be in Syria under current engagement rules and no reason to be in Afghanistan at all. Or Iraq. And no, I don't have to place extra value to military service, especially since I was barred from participating in it during my military ages, solely because of who I am. Being in the military is for many people, just a job - most of the military don't face military action. Sure, Vets deserve respect, but so do NON-Vets.
You didn't answer the question Mr. Rant & Whine. Would you die for the freedom of speech for the right as well as the left and that's assuming you would risk your life for the left? The social contract of a free nation is that we can disagree, practice our own understanding of morality within the law, read, speak and believe as we see fit, and agree to disagree, but when one's rights are threatened, the rights of all are threatened. If you won't honor that social contract then your views are alien to those of the nation. When you try to pass laws forcing a morality upon us that we don't accept, when you vote to increase public spending and force us to pay for it, when you try to legislate what we can read, say, or believe, then you are betraying the social contract that binds us together and you are the enemy of freedom. When duty calls if you don't answer you break the social contract. When you side with the political views of our military adversary then you are the traitor.
You claim to believe in many things but do you believe in defending the rights of all, or defending only your rights with the intention of forcing everyone else to acquiesce to your point of view? I get more than a strong whiff of your wanting to tell the rest of us how to live, what to believe, what we can or can't say, and giving us only your propaganda to read, and resenting anything else. That's what I get from you. And yet just like wanting the UK to stay in the EU to support those who are too inept or corrupt to support themselves your body politic on this board wants the rest of us to do the same for the inept and corrupt among us. You want to defile our sovereignty in the name of compassion when the goal is to further manipulate the vote for your agenda. If you can give me rational reasons to support irrational policies I'll listen. But so far I haven't heard one.
Either you will defend the rights of all within a diverse society or you will not? Which is it?
There's a big difference between accepting that there are awful people that will use basic freedoms to promote hatred of minorities and tolerating those behaviors.
Yea, if you think that America is a white Christian straight nation where those cultural norms should be supreme, then of course, we're going to condemn that. If you think we should align with a murderous thug who has actual death camps for Gay people in his country, then of course I'm going to say that's unacceptable.
There's a difference between accepting that people are going to say offensive things and allowing people to normalize that speech.
Tom, you've answered my question by condemning yourself. I am straight and by definition mostly White. I do have some Native American heritage confirmed in the family tree. I have worked on behalf of civil rights, have done some community organizing on behalf of the poor in a community where their children were going to be subjugated to pollutants hazardous to their health and as I had to point out to the health of those around them. I have employed gay people and worked on projects with others. I've taken battered women to shelters when their drunken husbands were threatening me with a gun, stopped a perp from mugging a woman in the parking lot of a mall where I was threatened with knife.
I've put life and skin on the line for those who likely wouldn't vote for who I would vote for, who would say things contrary to what I believe, but they knew where I stood on some of these issues and yet didn't flinch to do the same.
What has pissed me off no end where you are concerned is that you projected your hatred on to me just because of my political beliefs and without knowing me as a person. You have reveled in specious tactics giving your side election victories under spurious circumstances.
My caveat was within the law. I think that covers hate speech there sport. I don't and haven't hated anyone, but I don't trust people who think that when I disagree with their positions that my rights ought to be taken away. Apparently by your answer you do. We've been talking foreign politics, not domestic social issues. Radicals always want to take away their oppositions right to free speech, to take away their property if they have the chance, and they love a pound of flesh whether the actual person before them is guilty of damned thing or not.
The fact that you would place Gay rights and abuse of Gays before the national interests is proof to me of where your priorities reside. Mine reside with the health of this nation because that's where almost everyone I love and esteem lives. You want tolerance and it's been given freely by many many more people than who would deride you. But you give no tolerance back. If I were to hold to a Biblical view of morality, which is not prohibited by the law and is my right, you would classify me as a hater because it doesn't conform to your view of morality. That isn't tolerance Tom! If I vote for policies that recognize China as our most lethal adversary and would utilize some form of cooperation with Russia that is my political right. You insinuate that it makes me a gay hater. My view is that it would be in the best interest of our nation. By the way Tom the Chinese are even less tolerant than Russia. You conform to their norms in China. The folks that don't simply aren't heard from again. They don't tolerate other cultures except for business when they need something. They have the most successful assimilation program in history. Chinese move in and pretty soon only Chinese live there. Check out Cambodia. It really makes conquest and assimilation even if it isn't formalized quite effective.
Tom there are many Americans who will not accept the Gay lifestyle as moral. But if they don't persecute you, don't assault you, and don't try to deny your rights that is the essence of tolerance. The American in which you would live would force compliance of even these most personal of choices. Tom you are the fascist here. Practicing Christians, sadly of which there aren't as many as the other variety, would never harm you because it is against there faith. But your hatred of faith came through loud and clear in your post.
I find you to be a hypocrite to the very tolerance you preach. Tolerance for you is everyone being forced to comply to your personal choices. Freedom doesn't work that way.
I pushed you Tom because your form of liberalism and your intolerance are not only destructive to true liberalism, but destructive to the fabric of freedom and true tolerance that is the United States of America. One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All is something I take seriously. And yet what you have espoused many times is contrary to Unity because you do divide, and it is contrary to liberty because you would take away my rights to practice morality as I see fit, to think as I see fit, and to speak my views freely if they didn't conform to your vision for America.
American has to be big enough for many visions, but wise enough to govern by consensus.
You can espouse what you wish here and I'll leave you alone for the most part. But you have no credibility sir, at least not when it comes to affirming every American's rights to disagree, to believe as they see fit, to say what they believe publicly, and you certainly don't display empathy for fair elections based on your defenses of what are plainly atrocities in Broward and other such spots, and your assessment of China versus Russia defies logic, but now I at least know why.
But ancient wisdom from the far east says that any enemy of my enemy is my friend, and I would add "for now."
I knew you couldn't answer a question about self sacrifice for those who may not be able to agree with you because to do so you would have to place something ahead of self and everything you post starts and ends with that world view.
It looks like you might need a nap.
The safety and freedom of my people is ultimately my only priority, especially if it is under direct and ongoing threat. And the threat is real.
I am a GLOBALIST, not a nativist/nationalist.
The building I'm in is on fire and you're asking me to stop fighting the fire and help the guy carrying more gas to the fire.
----
After 2 years of Trump and all the horrors that it has revealed, I really don't have time to focus on overreach.
Is Duda's plan to deny all freedom of speech, petition, protest, assembly, association, press, due process and expression in Poland an acceptable cultural expression or something that should be fought? Since Trump has abrogated America's normal role in doing so, I have to consider who will stand up in cases like this. And in Poland's case, that is Merkel and the EU.
Farange and his fellow travelers in the BNP/UKIP have repeatedly and richly earned our reflexive opposition, through their statements and associations. Right now, if it hurts the ONLY people who are doing anything to stop attacks on my people and threats to my freedom, then I'm going to reflexively defend those who defend my people.
By the way, they might not be the biggest losers, but probably will be. The biggest losers may be the civilized people in the Conservatives who foolishly tried to appease the Farange side, and will probably end up and get destroyed politically by it.
I don't have time to worry about China right now. If China is the big threat, and you want all of us on board with you, perhaps you should have your side stop your side's allies from putting greater threats in between us and the China threat.
----
Its pretty clear that the nativists support a new order. And Gays, persons of color, Jews, Athiests, Muslims, Hispanics, and Blacks are on many of the anti-Globalists' shopping lists. Any one group might not be the first item on the list in any given day, but its pretty clear we are ALL on that list.
|
|