The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Except you keep claiming everything is predominantly leaning to the left and I proved you wrong.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, mate.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No, FINANCIERS have views his policies and claimed he was going to destroy this economy, based on their professional opinion. I would take that over stupid liberals who voted for Obama because he was the "anti bush".

You're sensationalizing things, as usual. Most of the financiers did not say "Obama will be the doooooooommmmm of the American economy!!!"; they simply said his current handling of the financial crisis wasn't good enough. Regardless of this, however, the populace at large views Obama as a good president.

In addition, as can be seen here (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/04/poll-obama-responsible/), 66% think a year has to go by until we eventually see the genuine ramifications of Obama's economic policy.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Wrong. Show me proof that Americans that voted for him knew of his policies, and NOT because he was the anti bush and that Mccain was a Bush clone. See, it goes both ways. Except it's more logical to assume more people know less about fiscal and foreign policies (as examples), than people who actually do.

So people saw Obama and said "Hey, let's vote for him"? I think that this is completely moronic. There are several factors to consider, including the fact that, ultimately, I believe that people were capable of deciphering the meaning of Barack Obama's speeches, including the high ratings for the presidential debate.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You keep saying this. Prove it.

-A study of 22 countries around the world display the fact that every single one of these nations would prefer Obama over McCain; 17 out of 22 of them also said that they believe international relationships around the world would improve if Obama was elected.
-A GlobeScan poll, involving 22,000 people, showed intense support for Obama. Even the lowest approval rating for Obama, India, had him lead the election by a very considerable margin. And India is a nation that thrives upon capitalism and free market, ideals Obama is not entirely in favor of.
-An Australian Poll showed that 75% of the populace are in favor of Obama.
-Further statistics to behold:

New Zealand: 66% in favor
Japan: 49% in favor (although this was the highest approval rating).
France: 65% in favor
Germany: 67% in favor
Netherlands: 90%

-Obama has superb relationships with multiple foreign prime ministers.

-Most of the countries in Europe (with a high approval rating) have a leftist government.

And unless you think all of these people are simply biased fools, which I cannot believe, then you must at least concede that the world is, at large, supportive of Obama's liberalism.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No. He was a classical liberalist. I support most of his policies as do most conservatives. This doesn't say much for your argument.

The concept of anti-slavery is against conservatism. Being in favor of societal change and equal rights, some of which go against ideals that were part of society since eternity, is a very liberal concept.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I can give you 10 that show he did far worse for the American economy in the long run.

First, the highest approval ratings of the 20th century go to FDR and, on some level, JFK. While I think we can chalk it up to JFK's charisma in the latter, FDR was a president in the worst crisis America ever faced; and he succeeded marvelously in beating the financial crisis and creating international cooperation and government-controlled trade. His policies are chiefly considered by historians to have led to America's current wealth.

Historians know more than you or Republican bloggers.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
After reading your arguments, this doesn't say much.

. . .

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Really? You love to make an argument without any kind of proof, so again, prove it. You sound like a blubbering buffoon spouting off nonsense without any validation. And the most affluent? Prove it? Because as far as I'm concerned, the conservative republicans dominate the wealth of this country, which is why liberals are against higher taxes and for supporting the poor, etc.

IQ and atheism: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=402381

http://www.interfaith.org/2008/06/20/study-links-atheism-to-high-iq/

In particular, the second details a psychological study conducted by professors that explains why the higher-educated and the more intelligent have been proven to be generally more atheistic and secular. In fact, the second link suggests that the decline in religious influence is due to rising intelligence levels all across the globe.

As for education and such? 49% of liberals have a college degree or more. They are, demographically speaking, the youngest group; social conservatives are the oldest, with 52 being the average age among them. 41% of liberals earn at least 75,000 dollars, making them the generally wealthiest group.

As can be seen here (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2007/12/the_liberal_ske.html), there is a very definitive skew for liberals among the elite of the country, especially in comparison to the general populace and among the most intelligence and educated Academic figures.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Looks like you can't argue against mine, which state conservatives dominate this country, classical liberalism=modern conservatism, and everything else that pretty much decimates your argument.

The basic idea behind liberalism is the driving force behind the constitution. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't anything there about socialism, moral absolutism, whatever; simply the basic aspect of liberalism. Both my ideology and your's take that definitive idea and create differing ideologies out of it.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
What?

My studies show a general support of liberalism regarding social issues. Only gay marriage was a generally conservative one, and even then, the largest groups supported tolerance, civil unions, and acknowledged that homosexuality is not a choice.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
This shows your continued ignorance for the history of this country. I will say this again, so you could absorb this information. Classical liberalism=modern conservatism. So if we are to play your little word games, I guess by our standards today, our country was founded on conservatism. There, I win again.

Our country was founded upon liberalism. You and I take it in different manners: modern and classic conservatism.

Not to mention that our obsession with the constitution and how our country was founded is moronic; instead of clinging to how it was, we should focus on what works now, in the 21st century, and how we create the best possible future.

No, they don't because half of your statistics don't show anything like that. I even gave you statistics that suggest the exact opposite.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Hilarious. Which is why I'm glad you'll never join the army, or ever support your country in any way, shape, or form.

Because I won't force my ideology upon my country unless the majority consent to it? This is called democracy.

And I will serve in the Israeli Army, actually, like the entirety of my family. That's more than you can say for yourself, you little patriot, eh?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
As I've proven, you'll watch me murder your neighbor because it has nothing to do with you and isn't on your property and who are you to tell me I'm wrong. That's your logic.

Iran is not my neighbor. Iran is a nation that operates on entirely differing cultural and ideological standards. My neighbor? Hardly so; we all live in a country that has certain norms, and reporting you will enforce our efficiency. Plus, my neighbor most certainly would not want to die; there must be a degree of consent from the populace if a totalitarian regime survives, otherwise revolution and instability will ensue.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Double standards, contradictions, picking and choosing. Give me a break. My next question will be "so when does it become YOUR problem?"

I think that we always have a duty to intervene around the world, but only in a manner to ensure effective compromises and the maintenance of cooperation and prevent the weak from getting crushed by the strong. However, hardcore military intervention and inevitably enforcing one ideology over the other is simply wrong and will only breed more war and violence.

There is a difference between this and forcing people to conform to our moralistic standards of good and evil; this is moving towards greater cooperation, alternatives, and potential peace between nations.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[B]Whatever helps you sleep at night, mate.

You're sensationalizing things, as usual. Most of the financiers did not say "Obama will be the doooooooommmmm of the American economy!!!"; they simply said his current handling of the financial crisis wasn't good enough. Regardless of this, however, the populace at large views Obama as a good president.

In addition, as can be seen here (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/04/poll-obama-responsible/), 66% think a year has to go by until we eventually see the genuine ramifications of Obama's economic policy.

So people saw Obama and said "Hey, let's vote for him"? I think that this is completely moronic. There are several factors to consider, including the fact that, ultimately, I believe that people were capable of deciphering the meaning of Barack Obama's speeches, including the high ratings for the presidential debate.

-A study of 22 countries around the world display the fact that every single one of these nations would prefer Obama over McCain; 17 out of 22 of them also said that they believe international relationships around the world would improve if Obama was elected.
-A GlobeScan poll, involving 22,000 people, showed intense support for Obama. Even the lowest approval rating for Obama, India, had him lead the election by a very considerable margin. And India is a nation that thrives upon capitalism and free market, ideals Obama is not entirely in favor of.
-An Australian Poll showed that 75% of the populace are in favor of Obama.

-Most of the countries in Europe (with a high approval rating) have a leftist government.

And unless you think all of these people are simply biased fools, which I cannot believe, then you must at least concede that the world is, at large, supportive of Obama's liberalism.

The concept of anti-slavery is against conservatism. Being in favor of societal change and equal rights, some of which go against ideals that were part of society since eternity, is a very liberal concept.

First, the highest approval ratings of the 20th century go to FDR and, on some level, JFK. While I think we can chalk it up to JFK's charisma in the latter, FDR was a president in the worst crisis America ever faced; and he succeeded marvelously in beating the financial crisis and creating international cooperation and government-controlled trade. His policies are chiefly considered by historians to have led to America's current wealth.

[quote]Historians know more than you or Republican bloggers.

Oh what's that? There's more than one poll? Good golly, there goes your "appeal to a certain majority" argument.

IQ and atheism: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=402381

http://www.interfaith.org/2008/06/20/study-links-atheism-to-high-iq/

Nice link that proves absolutely nothing but one tiny study, which doesn't really show any kind of real correlation.

In particular, the second details a psychological study conducted by professors that explains why the higher-educated and the more intelligent have been proven to be generally more atheistic and secular. In fact, the second link suggests that the decline in religious influence is due to rising intelligence levels all across the globe.

As for education and such? 49% of liberals have a college degree or more. They are, demographically speaking, the youngest group; social conservatives are the oldest, with 52 being the average age among them. 41% of liberals earn at least 75,000 dollars, making them the generally wealthiest group.

As can be seen here (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2007/12/the_liberal_ske.html), there is a very definitive skew for liberals among the elite of the country, especially in comparison to the general populace and among the most intelligence and educated Academic figures.

There we go.

The basic idea behind liberalism is the driving force behind the constitution. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't anything there about socialism, moral absolutism, whatever; simply the basic aspect of liberalism. Both my ideology and your's take that definitive idea and create differing ideologies out of it.

My studies show a general support of liberalism regarding social issues. Only gay marriage was a generally conservative one, and even then, the largest groups supported tolerance, civil unions, and acknowledged that homosexuality is not a choice.

Our country was founded upon liberalism. You and I take it in different manners: modern and classic conservatism.

Not to mention that our obsession with the constitution and how our country was founded is moronic; instead of clinging to how it was, we should focus on what works now, in the 21st century, and how we create the best possible future.

Because I won't force my ideology upon my country unless the majority consent to it? This is called democracy.

And I will serve in the Israeli Army, actually, like the entirety of my family. That's more than you can say for yourself, you little patriot, eh?

Iran is not my neighbor. Iran is a nation that operates on entirely differing cultural and ideological standards. My neighbor? Hardly so; we all live in a country that has certain norms, and reporting you will enforce our efficiency. Plus, my neighbor most certainly would not want to die; there must be a degree of consent from the populace if a totalitarian regime survives, otherwise revolution and instability will ensue.

I think that we always have a duty to intervene around the world, but only in a manner to ensure effective compromises and the maintenance of cooperation and prevent the weak from getting crushed by the strong. However, hardcore military intervention and inevitably enforcing one ideology over the other is simply wrong and will only breed more war and violence.

There is a difference between this and forcing people to conform to our moralistic standards of good and evil; this is moving towards greater cooperation, alternatives, and potential peace between nations. [/B]

Here's another link..
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/03/202017.php

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Wait so you can't take my sources because they're blogs and/or biased conservatism? I guess I can't take yours either. Here's mine.
http://www.vdare.com/francis/pollsters.htm
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=975
www.mcn.org/e/iii/books/repubhst.html

There we go.

My post had statistics behind it. Your's? Opinions exclusively.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Except my ideologies are based on what this country was founded upon. Yours are not unless you take a literal meaning and skew it to your personal beliefs (which you do so often). Furthermore, who said anything about socialism? It is not my fault you don't know the differences between the far left of today (you), and the idea of classical liberalism. I suggest you take that wiki link I sent you and educate yourself.

The constitution is founded upon the ideal of inalienable human rights given to every individual, regardless of race, class, gender, or whatever; can you explain how that contradicts modern liberalism? What aspect of the Constitution contradicts modern liberalism?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You claimed this country is mostly liberal now, especially because they vote mostly liberal on most views. I proved you wrong. Yuo can justify however you want it. Same sex marriages are still opposed by the majority. Death Penalty is still supported by the majority. Neither majority constitutes liberals. So please stop telling me what your studies support, because you change your argument each time I prove one aspect of it wrong.

No, you did not. Gay marriage and capital punishment are the only genuinely conservative opinions around the United States; other societal values are generally liberal in their approval ratings.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Except you would be wrong to say it was founded on liberalism. Your repeated attempts at denial are failing. There's only one way to take it. Our country was founded upon classical liberalism, which constitutes modern conservatism today. Again, you're good at denial and skewing things to make yourself sleep better at night, but you're wrong yet again.

Prove it is founded on an idea I am ideologically opposed to. Prove that it contains ideals that modern conservatism glorifies and modern liberalism opposes. The idea of 'all men were born equal [...]" is an ideal that is the foundation of my ideology, too.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Your idea that we should change everything and the implication that change equates to good, is dumber than anything i've ever said. The constitution is a living breathing thing and we change things we deem unconstitutional. If you don't like it don't live here. The majority of Americans still hold to our country's roots while trying to make a better America.

The constitution is a living, breathing thing? The constitution is a piece of paper, written by perfectly fallible human beings only capable of viewing the world in their subjective manner; it so happens that I agree with what they say. However, you must understand that it is simply an opinion piece regarding interpretation of human rights; it is subjective to change and interpretation, being that we live in the 21st century.

I do agree with the concept of human rights supplied by the constitution; however, nations that violate that concept are not necessarily evil.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Right. So I'll kill your family or your neighbor's family and you won't do a damn thing about it because you don't have the balls to do what's right. Conservatives believe in SOME absolutes and are willing to put themselves on the line in situations like the one I mentioned. Liberals tend to sit back and ***** and moan about "free peace, love, etc" without even understanding what they're saying.

I'll protect anybody's interests from being crushed by a differing individual; being that we all live in a state that functions on certain standards of efficiency and human rights, you ultimately must respect these laws so long as they apply to others.

It is none of my business what consenting people do to each other; and completely changing a societal and governmental regime because I do not like it is vastly different from reporting an individual for directly harming unconsenting individuals, thus robbing them of their chances to express themselves.

A nation chooses a set of ideals it must follow; a set of ideals that is generally agreed upon by the populace there.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Sure you will. Let me know when you enlist, because that's the only time you'll have an argument. And I doubt the Israeli army is going to let you in. If I were you I'd keep quiet about your delusional hippie beliefs.

The head of the farthest (mainstream) left party in Israel, Meretz, has two kids serving in the air force. So much for liberals being cowards who can't do anything that isn't within their self-interest.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
It doesn't matter. If you don't care about what happens to life in other countries, you have no reason to ***** about legal, state executions here or anywhere else. Otherwise you're constantly contradicting yourself. And if I see someone being killed/raped in another country, I sure as hell am going to stop them. Only an ignorant person would think that there's justification to murder, and justify THAT insane belief with "It's their culture who am I to intrude". How are you going to join the Israeli army with that belief? Are you going to ask them to put you in a position where you don't have to kill anybody?

How, exactly, would you force a country to revamp its regime? By assaulting them and killing many, many more people than that regime ever killed, and only have the people become alienated from these ideals and create a dysfunctional government that will soon collapse?

It is impossible to force our moralistic and governmental standards upon an entirely different society without causing far more harm in the way. See Iraq for proof; the people there want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship. We cannot understand that, because our concepts of good and happiness are so vastly different; but what works for a different group of people may not necessarily work for us. A government must have a form of consent from its people, otherwise it will be overthrown. With the exception of extreme cases, it is morally wrong and pragmatically impossible to force a so-called 'primitive' nation to adapt to our cultural standards. Progress must come from within, not be forced upon you in a coercive and aggressive manner.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You fail to understand human nature, you really do. Your ideal world is based on what you THINK it should be, which is based on NOTHING historical, or even logical. Some wars are necessary, but as long as humans live, there will always be wars.

With the exception of the fact that we have constantly abolished or minimized aggressive policies like slavery and imperialism and moved towards a more peaceful society. Progression has been an integral part of humanity: the desire for a utopia is as important humanity's nature as evil and hatred is.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
The difference is I would help people no matter where they're from. You would sit on your ass and ***** unless it was on your doorstep.

Ah, so let me ask you a question: A certain nation is oppressing a relatively small group of individuals, say, 1000 or so, and treating them inhumanely and without their consent. This is a product of a regime we perceive to be evil, being a fascistic and authoritarian one, but the people largely consent to it and view it as a moral one. What do you do? Do you intervene militarily, thus resulting in a war that will kill many, many more than people will be killed otherwise? Is it honestly within your right to force your ideology upon an unwilling majority, being that it is an anti-democratic action in itself? Would you kill and alienate 50,000 in order to preserve the rights of the 1,000, and subsequently force the majority to live a life in a regime they morally disapprove of?

I believe some form of intervention is necessary, but only diplomatic in nature. Acting with aggression and imperialism is far from compassionate, because people ultimately know what is good for them better than you.

Edit: Sexy, being a pure Ashkenazi Jew, I am frankly disgusted by the link you posted here. And you wonder why the world hates us? Our air constant air of superiority and belief in our intelligence and success. The Jews dominate a lot of intellectual things simply because we have a culture that glorifies the cerebral over the physical. Is this good or bad? Well, there are simply differing standards. I think, however, to insinuate that Jews are naturally smarter is a repulsive thing that makes me want to puke my guts out.

And 2/3 of Jews in the U.S voted for Obama.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[B]My post had statistics behind it. Your's? Opinions exclusively.

The constitution is founded upon the ideal of inalienable human rights given to every individual, regardless of race, class, gender, or whatever; can you explain how that contradicts modern liberalism? What aspect of the Constitution contradicts modern liberalism?

No, you did not. Gay marriage and capital punishment are the only genuinely conservative opinions around the United States; other societal values are generally liberal in their approval ratings.

Prove it is founded on an idea I am ideologically opposed to. Prove that it contains ideals that modern conservatism glorifies and modern liberalism opposes. The idea of 'all men were born equal [...]" is an ideal that is the foundation of my ideology, too.

The constitution is a living, breathing thing? The constitution is a piece of paper, written by perfectly fallible human beings only capable of viewing the world in their subjective manner; it so happens that I agree with what they say. However, you must understand that it is simply an opinion piece regarding interpretation of human rights; it is subjective to change and interpretation, being that we live in the 21st century.

I do agree with the concept of human rights supplied by the constitution; however, nations that violate that concept are not necessarily evil.

I'll protect anybody's interests from being crushed by a differing individual; being that we all live in a state that functions on certain standards of efficiency and human rights, you ultimately must respect these laws so long as they apply to others.

It is none of my business what consenting people do to each other; and completely changing a societal and governmental regime because I do not like it is vastly different from reporting an individual for directly harming unconsenting individuals, thus robbing them of their chances to express themselves.

The head of the farthest (mainstream) left party in Israel, Meretz, has two kids serving in the air force. So much for liberals being cowards who can't do anything that isn't within their self-interest.

How, exactly, would you force a country to revamp its regime? By assaulting them and killing many, many more people than that regime ever killed, and only have the people become alienated from these ideals and create a dysfunctional government that will soon collapse?

It is impossible to force our moralistic and governmental standards upon an entirely different society without causing far more harm in the way. See Iraq for proof; the people there want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship. We cannot understand that, because our concepts of good and happiness are so vastly different; but what works for a different group of people may not necessarily work for us. A government must have a form of consent from its people, otherwise it will be overthrown. With the exception of extreme cases, it is morally wrong and pragmatically impossible to force a so-called 'primitive' nation to adapt to our cultural standards. Progress must come from within, not be forced upon you in a coercive and aggressive manner.

With the exception of the fact that we have constantly abolished or minimized aggressive policies like slavery and imperialism and moved towards a more peaceful society. Progression has been an integral part of humanity: the desire for a utopia is as important humanity's nature as evil and hatred is.

Ah, so let me ask you a question: A certain nation is oppressing a relatively small group of individuals, say, 1000 or so, and treating them inhumanely and without their consent. This is a product of a regime we perceive to be evil, being a fascistic and authoritarian one, but the people largely consent to it and view it as a moral one. What do you do? Do you intervene militarily, thus resulting in a war that will kill many, many more than people will be killed otherwise? Is it honestly within your right to force your ideology upon an unwilling majority, being that it is an anti-democratic action in itself? Would you kill and alienate 50,000 in order to preserve the rights of the 1,000, and subsequently force the majority to live a life in a regime they morally disapprove of?

I believe some form of intervention is necessary, but only diplomatic in nature. Acting with aggression and imperialism is far from compassionate, because people ultimately know what is good for them better than you.

Edit: Sexy, being a pure Ashkenazi Jew, I am frankly disgusted by the link you posted here. And you wonder why the world hates us? Our air constant air of superiority and belief in our intelligence and success. The Jews dominate a lot of intellectual things simply because we have a culture that glorifies the cerebral over the physical. Is this good or bad? Well, there are simply differing standards. I think, however, to insinuate that Jews are naturally smarter is a repulsive thing that makes me want to puke my guts out.

And 2/3 of Jews in the U.S voted for Obama. [/B]

ugh3 You suck.

Originally posted by Elite Hunter
How in the hell did the battle bar get this heated? I thought this was a social thread with no debating lol.

Edit: Also, Master Crimzon is a naive delusional scary hippie who will destroy the world with his insane beliefs. Don't die when you enlist!

There. Now I've addressed both sides of the argument. I win moar.

Originally posted by Eminence
Someone missed the past thousand and a half posts.

Where's my quarter pounder with cheese meal? Did you supersize the fries like I asked?

Where's my quarter pounder with cheese meal? Did you supersize the fries like I asked?

He did for me.badawe

Bwahahaha, I'm the favourite.excellent

... Can someone not on Ignore explain that for me?

Edit: 'Kay, it's been four minutes. I'm going to assume no one else understands his sense of humor, either.

Insanity/Conservative.

Edit: Sorry, I only speak crazy and retard.

Exodus:

Originally posted by Eminence
Someone missed the past thousand and a half posts.

Edit: Also, Master Crimzon is a naive delusional scary hippie who will destroy the world with his insane beliefs. Don't die when you enlist!

There. Now I've addressed both sides of the argument. I win moar.

Well instead of calling out two people who made two equal statements (different sides of the spectrum), you decided to chime in and accuse one of us, which makes you look absolutely ridiculous. I'm not surprised you didn't have a rebuttal. But I'm glad you learned to stay out of debates (for the most part), in which you don't have an argument.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Your argument has nothing to do with your stats. In fact, if it did, it would directly contradict your assertions. It's not my fault you can't keep up with your own argument.

66% of Americans, in a poll, support Obama's policies. But when the majority disagrees with you, they're dumb sheep who don't understand anything!

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
here are a few links for you to further educate yourself.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005344.html
http://www.radicalacademy.com/philclassliberalism.htm
"Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government. Thomas Jefferson called these inalienable rights: "...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."[25] For classical liberalism, rights are of a negative nature—rights that require that other individuals (and governments) refrain from interfering with individual liberty, whereas social liberalism (also called modern liberalism or welfare liberalism) holds that individuals have a right to be provided with certain benefits or services by others.[26] Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are "hostile to the welfare state."[9] They do not have an interest in material equality but only in "equality before the law."[27] Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights"

And can you explain when was capitalism (an integral part of classical liberalism) mentioned in the Constitution? Is there anything in it that is contradictory to ideas posed by modern liberalism? Just give me a straight answer, or concede that both of these ideologies are based on similar principles expressed in different manners.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Nope, the only thing that constituted a liberal majority was stem cell research. Nothing else.

Abortion: 39% in favor at all times, 38% with restrictions (note: this includes both people who simply think it should be regulated and people who think it should be banned except in rape, etc...), 23% against.

Gay tolerance? Majority for it and see it as a natural act. More than 50% support the idea of civil unions. Many do not want to exclude them from the possibilities of child adoption.

And, of course, then you have Obama's approval ratings, both national and international.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Read the above link. I told you to educate yourself with the concept of classical liberalism before spouting off "liberalism is liberalism!!"
Meanwhile read this in your spare time so you can understand the differences between the ideologies. It might take you a while.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf

I understand the differences between them, but they are still, fundamentally, created on a similar idea. I'd like to see proof that the constitution necessarily advocates your 'classic liberal' beliefs.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
We ONLY have the right to change the constitution if something is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It is a living and breathing document because it is often amended.

Sure, but you have to understand that the constitution is not an infallible piece of work, right? And you must understand that it only applies to the American populace, and there is objective or universal source indicating that cultures who don't follow it are evil?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Yes, they are. You don't have any argument other than "everything is subjective lolers".

Is there an objective, universal, infallible source dictating human rights? Or are they simply the creation of our moral and ideological beliefs?

I believe in the concept of human rights; thus, I do not believe that our society should ever compromise these natural rights, no matter what. That is because it is our society and I worry about our maintenance of our moralistic high ground and our concept of humans; thus, we do not degenerate or revert to the ideological and potentially barbaric standards set by differing societies.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No you wouldn't. You said it yourself. Hitler wasn't necessarily wrong until he started killing outside of Germany, and even then by your own logic, he wasn't wrong.

I've explained what we should have done when the Holocaust, that focused exclusively in Germany, occurred. We should not have done nothing, but we should never have intervened with military force and therefore caused the deaths of countless innocents.

The best possible way to act is somehow to balance the interests of several groups, instead of supporting the one we sympathize with over the other. This should be our rule- act as the most objective international arbiter we can possibly be.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Nobody was talking about consenting. I said if i was in another country and I was witnessing someone getting raped or murdered, I'd step in. By your repeated arguments, you wouldn't.

Well, of course you should intervene. This has nothing to do with the universal good or bad of the action, but rather that this directly harms the interests of the weaker individual; these interests must be protected.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Well holy shit. I guess 2 kids constitute the majority. And you have NO clue as to their ideologies. You just do what you do best. Speculate without any proof.

I don't know their ideologies? Meretz is a socialist hippie party, with blatantly anti-religious opinions.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Holding those mass murderers responsible for their actions.

But you must understand that they were under no contract to obey our rules of the world: there is no ultimate source dictating that our rules are necessarily better.

Ignoring this, how exactly do you hold them responsible for their actions without causing far more harm than you would have otherwise?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Our government, which sees murder as a universal wrong, will not stand by and watch innocents die. There may be right and wrong ways of interjecting, but the point remains. We will protect the innocent.

By enforcing the so-called 'innocent', we directly harm other innocent individuals; you ought to care about them, too. And even the guilty are human beings. In order to maintain our humanity and our form of good and moralistic superiority (note: our, which is why we are us and they are them), we do not degenerate to their standards of violence.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Except everyone has a different idea for this "utopia", most of them being completely contradictory to human nature and history.

Yes, let's ignore all the progress we've made throughout the course of history and cling to the moronic ideal that humanity will never change. And then let's tell ourselves it's realistic!

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You love to make specific situations and consequences based on your beliefs. Here I'll try it my way. We intervene and subdue those responsible for the crimes. What happens if we don't? 1,000 turns into 100,000, and into the millions. There goes your argment.

The end is hypothetical and can purely be measured on a speculation; killing 50,000 in order to save 1000 because "well, more might be killed" is stupid. The end is an abstract that cannot ever be verified: what we can control is the means, and these means define us.

And there should be a form of intervention, clearly, but purely diplomatic in nature. Military force cannot be utilized without resorting to violence and the forcing of our subjective ideology upon unwilling others.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
It is impossible to force our moralistic and governmental standards upon an entirely different society without causing far more harm in the way. See Iraq for proof; the people there want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship.

How, in the blue hell, did you develop the - ridiculous - idea, that the people in Iraq want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship?

A government must have a form of consent from its people, otherwise it will be overthrown.

The funny stuff with dictators is that they - in most cases - assume control over the military of a country (and of course the law enforcement). Makes "overthrowing" rather hard, when you can't even demonstrated without risking your live, huh?

With the exception of extreme cases, it is morally wrong and pragmatically impossible to force a so-called 'primitive' nation to adapt to our cultural standards. Progress must come from within, not be forced upon you in a coercive and aggressive manner.

Well. It's hard to find a primitive nation when it comes to cultural standards when you happen to live in America. *runs for cover* Moral standards would be a different thing. 😉

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
So it's ok for the enemy to be destructive but when we respond with a destructive nature, we're at fault. Nice double standards.

That is EXACTLY correct, and I am so glad you picked up on that. The enemy operates on one standard. We operate on another. It is not 'okay' for the enemy to use destruction; but by using rampant, unchecked destruction in return, we lose our humanity and our consistent fight for the maintenance of our concept of societal good. Moralistic degeneration is something we must never, ever resort to: by acting in the same manner as our opponent, we simply continue to breed the cycle of destruction.

Beyond the utilitarian applications of this, idealism and standards of decency are what define us. By enforcing our ideology in the same manner as our hated opponent, we do something that must never, ever be done: we lose ourselves. We become animals.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You're a self hating Jew and American so that doesn't surprise me. The link wasn't meant to say Jews are the smartest people alive, it's meant to contradict your "polls" and studies. And funny how you have no problem with considering athiests to be the smartest people, but when it's your own people, you are disgusted. Most liberals are self hating (whatever their culture or society is). And as a liberal Jew, I'm going to assume you're only Jewish by blood, not faith. Because if a liberal hates anything, it's something organized. IF you want to feel that you're more intelligent because you don't follow a "delusional" religion, as you put it, electing instead to follow a delusional utopia, good for you. Ignorance is bliss. And the world doesn't hate us because we don't have a superiority conflict. We are hated by fundamentalist Muslims. Fundamentalist Christians support us. But again, of course you can puke your guts out when your people are being called "smarter" by a poll. But it's perfectly fine when it's an athiest. Man, you're hilarious with your double standards and contradictions.

It was far from a scientific poll. And I was not arguing that atheists are smarter; I was arguing that smarter people tend to be atheists. These things are entirely different. Saying that Jews are naturally smarter is a racist thing to do.

However, studies, like the ones I showed you, show a definitive link between education and intelligence with atheism and liberalism.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Prove it. Apparently, appealing to the majority without any kind of basis is the last resort to a weak argument.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225715346628&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

There. Your precious smart Jews voted dominantly Obama.

Originally posted by Borbarad
How, in the blue hell, did you develop the - ridiculous - idea, that the people in Iraq want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship?

By their resistance and hostility towards American democratization attempts.

Originally posted by Borbarad
The funny stuff with dictators is that they - in most cases - assume control over the military of a country (and of course the law enforcement). Makes "overthrowing" rather hard, when you can't even demonstrated without risking your live, huh?

Countries that hate their regime will inevitably overthrow it. Throughout history, monarchic and militaristic regimes were overthrown by the will of the people to resist it.

Originally posted by Borbarad
Well. It's hard to find a primitive nation when it comes to cultural standards when you happen to live in America. *runs for cover* Moral standards would be a different thing. 😉

I don't live in America, but what exactly is your point in this statement?

Originally posted by Eminence
Edit: Also, Master Crimzon is a naive delusional scary hippie who will destroy the world with his insane beliefs. Don't die when you enlist!

Thanks, man. But you forgot quasi intellectual. I'm also a quasi-intellectual.

And I will be president of the international government I will instill with my demented and idealistic beliefs.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
66% of Americans, in a poll, support Obama's policies. But when the majority disagrees with you, they're dumb sheep who don't understand anything!

And there should be a form of intervention, clearly, but purely diplomatic in nature. Military force cannot be utilized without resorting to violence and the forcing of our subjective ideology upon unwilling others.

Wars will always happen. This concept of pure diplomacy is a myth that someone told you as a good night story. Diplomacy happens, but pure diplomacy will never happen.