quote:

its a system that to my knowledge, most countries in the world that are not run by dictators have decided to follow.

quote:

"Why the Left Loathes Western Civilization"

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

a part of the larger conversation:

"Why the Left Loathes Western Civilization"

quote:

Wherever there is conflict between the West -- identified as white, capitalist or of European roots -- and the non-West, the left portrays the West as the villain...

The left similarly describes any suggestion that anything Western is superior to anything non-Western. Likewise, it dismisses virtually all Western achievements, but regards criticism of anything non-Western as racist, chauvinistic, imperialist, colonialist, xenophobic, etc...

That is why the left is so protective of Islam...It is not that the left is sympathetic to Islam, for it has contempt for all religions. It is that many Muslims loathe the West, and the enemies of my enemy (the West) must be protected...

That is why the left loathes Israel. If the left actually cared about human rights, women's rights, gay rights, or freedom of speech, religion and press, it would be wildly pro-Israel. But Israel, in the left's view, is white, European and colonialist, or in other words, Western. And the Palestinians are non-Western.

So, the Big Question is, why? Why is the left hostile toward Western civilization?

After decades of considering this question, I have concluded the answer is this: standards.

The left hates standards -- moral standards, artistic standards, cultural standards. The West is built on all three, and it has excelled in all three.

Why does the left hate standards? It hates standards because when there are standards, there is judgment. And leftists don't want to be judged.

[much more at the site]

http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2016/04/26/why-the-left-loathes-western-civilization-n2153625

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

"Why the Left Loathes Western Civilization"

Once again with the Americanisms. There is no "the Left", both left and right are huge broad categories that encompass an enormous range of thought, and yet you guys keep on insisting that you can lump it all into one basket and draw conclusions. It is ridiculous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

a part of the larger conversation:

"Why the Left Loathes Western Civilization"

quote:

Wherever there is conflict between the West -- identified as white, capitalist or of European roots -- and the non-West, the left portrays the West as the villain...

The left similarly describes any suggestion that anything Western is superior to anything non-Western. Likewise, it dismisses virtually all Western achievements, but regards criticism of anything non-Western as racist, chauvinistic, imperialist, colonialist, xenophobic, etc...

That is why the left is so protective of Islam...It is not that the left is sympathetic to Islam, for it has contempt for all religions. It is that many Muslims loathe the West, and the enemies of my enemy (the West) must be protected...

That is why the left loathes Israel. If the left actually cared about human rights, women's rights, gay rights, or freedom of speech, religion and press, it would be wildly pro-Israel. But Israel, in the left's view, is white, European and colonialist, or in other words, Western. And the Palestinians are non-Western.

So, the Big Question is, why? Why is the left hostile toward Western civilization?

After decades of considering this question, I have concluded the answer is this: standards.

The left hates standards -- moral standards, artistic standards, cultural standards. The West is built on all three, and it has excelled in all three.

Why does the left hate standards? It hates standards because when there are standards, there is judgment. And leftists don't want to be judged.

[much more at the site]

http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2016/04/26/why-the-left-loathes-western-civilization-n2153625

God, that's a monumentally stupid article. Sorry, Bounty - but it really is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

its a system that to my knowledge, most countries in the world that are not run by dictators have decided to follow.

but to your point, yes id be happy to have all the liberals move to cuba or Sweden.

"rudderless" in your response isn't appropriate---what goes on, and it goes on everywhere, which is was the point of my post, is fighting for control of the rudder.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Thoughts?
The market always wins eventually.
It has nothing to do with americanism.
In point of fact America is a soft competitor.
The current downturn in France is caused by new competitors China has emerged and France is ill-prepared to compete. The faster France adopts free-market reforms the less pain there will be.

But people will follow whatever Pied Piper promises them free food and free money and eventually there's always a reckoning

quote:

But people will follow whatever Pied Piper promises them free food and free money

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

"Why the Left Loathes Western Civilization"

Once again with the Americanisms. There is no "the Left", both left and right are huge broad categories that encompass an enormous range of thought, and yet you guys keep on insisting that you can lump it all into one basket and draw conclusions. It is ridiculous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
its a system that to my knowledge, most countries in the world that are not run by dictators have decided to follow.
but to your point, yes id be happy to have all the liberals move to cuba or Sweden.
"rudderless" in your response isn't appropriate---what goes on, and it goes on everywhere, which is was the point of my post, is fighting for control of the rudder.

I never said anything about your American liberals moving to some other country (you make the arrogant assumption that other countries would want them).. You are stuck with them & them with you..
I wont comment about political systems in other countries but only the one I know the most about and the one i am a citizen of.. Canada does not allow its politicians to be bought like yours are.. there is a very different relationship in Canada compared to yours, in great part due to the way funding is done (the majority, about 80% is publicly funded).. private political contributions that are allowed are very small so its a hell of a lot harder to buy a politician the way y'all do it.. That is why Canadian politicians are more inclined to actually do what Canadians want, not what corporations want, the exact opposite of what happens in the US.. and why Americans are screwed no matter which party the Prez comes from.. So while y'all (wrongly) think Canadians are just like you, we are not and our political system is very, very different..
"As explained by the Supreme Court of Canada:
This model is premised on the notion that individuals should have an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process. Under this model, wealth is the main obstacle to equal par­ticipation; see C. Feasby, "Libman v. Quebec (A.G.) and the Administration of the Process of Democracy under the Charter: The Emerging Egalitarian Model" (1999), 44 McGill L.J. 5. Thus, the egali­tarian model promotes an electoral process that requires the wealthy to be prevented from control­ling the electoral process to the detriment of others with less economic power. The state can equalize participation in the electoral process in two ways; see O. M. Fiss, The Irony of Free Speech (1996), at p. 4. First, the State can provide a voice to those who might otherwise not be heard. The Act does so by reimbursing candidates and political parties and by providing broadcast time to political par­ties. Second, the State can restrict the voices which dominate the political discourse so that others may be heard as well. In Canada, electoral regulation has focussed on the latter by regulating electoral spending through comprehensive election finance provisions. These provisions seek to create a level playing field for those who wish to engage in the electoral discourse. This, in turn, enables voters to be better informed; no one voice is overwhelmed by another."
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rep/oth/aft&document=p1&lang=e

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

"Why the Left Loathes Western Civilization"

Once again with the Americanisms. There is no "the Left", both left and right are huge broad categories that encompass an enormous range of thought, and yet you guys keep on insisting that you can lump it all into one basket and draw conclusions. It is ridiculous.

Communication is the exchange of ideas, knowledge, information, etc. The words used are very important, as they can either help or hinder that exchange. Just think if you read the line, "The smurfing smurf is smurfing." Is that a bad thing? A good thing? No idea, what I wrote there. It can be interpreted a multitude of different ways.

Knowing the speaker can assist in interpreting words that have different meanings. I believe it was either PFH or Polite that brought up the way those of us in the US use the word "liberal" (in the political sense) isn't, pretty much, the way any other country uses it. But, it's a completely valid use of the word here, as it's meaning is easily known to others from the US. What the rest of the world means with the word "liberal" (in a political sense) is what we in the US would term "classic (or classical) liberal."

It can make it a pain in the smurf on boards with international members, but, if you know who is saying it, you have a much better idea of what is meant by it's use. I can tell you, however, that going on a crusade to change the way some people use a word is likely to be pointless, especially when the usage is an accepted practice for a large group of people.

Best of luck to you, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
its a system that to my knowledge, most countries in the world that are not run by dictators have decided to follow.
but to your point, yes id be happy to have all the liberals move to cuba or Sweden.
"rudderless" in your response isn't appropriate---what goes on, and it goes on everywhere, which is was the point of my post, is fighting for control of the rudder.

I never said anything about your American liberals moving to some other country (you make the arrogant assumption that other countries would want them).. You are stuck with them & them with you..
I wont comment about political systems in other countries but only the one I know the most about and the one i am a citizen of.. Canada does not allow its politicians to be bought like yours are.. there is a very different relationship in Canada compared to yours, in great part due to the way funding is done (the majority, about 80% is publicly funded).. private political contributions that are allowed are very small so its a hell of a lot harder to buy a politician the way y'all do it.. That is why Canadian politicians are more inclined to actually do what Canadians want, not what corporations want, the exact opposite of what happens in the US.. and why Americans are screwed no matter which party the Prez comes from.. So while y'all (wrongly) think Canadians are just like you, we are not and our political system is very, very different..
"As explained by the Supreme Court of Canada:
This model is premised on the notion that individuals should have an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process. Under this model, wealth is the main obstacle to equal par­ticipation; see C. Feasby, "Libman v. Quebec (A.G.) and the Administration of the Process of Democracy under the Charter: The Emerging Egalitarian Model" (1999), 44 McGill L.J. 5. Thus, the egali­tarian model promotes an electoral process that requires the wealthy to be prevented from control­ling the electoral process to the detriment of others with less economic power. The state can equalize participation in the electoral process in two ways; see O. M. Fiss, The Irony of Free Speech (1996), at p. 4. First, the State can provide a voice to those who might otherwise not be heard. The Act does so by reimbursing candidates and political parties and by providing broadcast time to political par­ties. Second, the State can restrict the voices which dominate the political discourse so that others may be heard as well. In Canada, electoral regulation has focussed on the latter by regulating electoral spending through comprehensive election finance provisions. These provisions seek to create a level playing field for those who wish to engage in the electoral discourse. This, in turn, enables voters to be better informed; no one voice is overwhelmed by another."
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rep/oth/aft&document=p1&lang=e

The role of money in politics is due, in large part, to too many voters being "low information" voters. How money prevents people from taking an active role in the electoral process, I'm not sure. And, how it prevents electoral discourse I, again, am not sure of. Unions buying ad space during a show doesn't prevent me from discussing anything. Voters here in the US either pay attention to the ads, accepting the message contained therein, question that message and fact-check it, or ignore those ads and do their own research. There are too many people in that first category, and not enough in the other two. An educated electorate, though, can see through the bullshit of the ads and come to their own conclusions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

hey, there may be the odd Yank that pays attention and takes the time to educate themselves

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: vincentML


It is exactly our care for human rights that lead us to protest the ethnic cleansing, racial apartheid, and neo-colonialism that Israel has imposed upon the Palestinians.


While ignoring our own ethnic clensing and maintaining our colonies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

its a system that to my knowledge, most countries in the world that are not run by dictators have decided to follow.

but to your point, yes id be happy to have all the liberals move to cuba or Sweden.

"rudderless" in your response isn't appropriate---what goes on, and it goes on everywhere, which is was the point of my post, is fighting for control of the rudder.

I never said anything about your American liberals moving to some other country (you make the arrogant assumption that other countries would want them).. You are stuck with them & them with you..

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

its a system that to my knowledge, most countries in the world that are not run by dictators have decided to follow.

Actually it's not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

"Why the Left Loathes Western Civilization"

Once again with the Americanisms. There is no "the Left", both left and right are huge broad categories that encompass an enormous range of thought, and yet you guys keep on insisting that you can lump it all into one basket and draw conclusions. It is ridiculous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

its a system that to my knowledge, most countries in the world that are not run by dictators have decided to follow.

but to your point, yes id be happy to have all the liberals move to cuba or Sweden.

"rudderless" in your response isn't appropriate---what goes on, and it goes on everywhere, which is was the point of my post, is fighting for control of the rudder.

I never said anything about your American liberals moving to some other country (you make the arrogant assumption that other countries would want them).. You are stuck with them & them with you..

instead of a self-serving interpretation that seemingly justifies your defensiveness ("I never said anything about American liberals moving...") how about trying to interpret my "to your point..." comment in a way that I actually meant it?

your point, unless im wrong, was all the "left/right" fighting going on. so my "to your point" was in taking care of that by having all the liberals leave.

also see my response to dizzychick below.

and my wanting them to move doesn't involve any "arrogance" on my part. its not a real plan that involves actual cooperation from the other countries, its just an illustrative point I make that conservatives and libertarians would be happier without them here.