Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They call themselves "Liberal", but they are anything but. Typically, control freak Fasco-Communists who want to use the combination of Big Government and Big Corporations (they are now a combined force) to control YOU. The reason there is such a divide in this country is the Left is not satisfied with just believing and doing what they want. They want to force YOU to believe and do what they want and require that YOU cheerlead for it also. They view silence as non-compliance; hence their "silence is violence" mantra.
They call themselves "Liberal", but they are anything but. Typically, control freak Fasco-Communists who want to use the combination of Big Government and Big Corporations (they are now a combined force) to control YOU. The reason there is such a divide in this country is the Left is not satisfied with just believing and doing what they want. They want to force YOU to believe and do what they want and require that YOU cheerlead for it also. They view silence as non-compliance; hence their "silence is violence" mantra.
... The reason there is such a divide in this country is the Left is not satisfied with just believing and doing what they want. They want to force YOU to believe and do what they want and require that YOU cheerlead for it also. ....
That's an equal-opportunity tendency. Most groups profess to be live-and-let-live, but their actual desire is to change the laws to favor their own preferences.
Consider, if we regard a given practice to be odious and stupid. Never mind what it is - just pick one. Candidates are legion! Well, is it enough to say, "Assuredly I don't engage in this practice. Neither do, hopefully, my closest friends. What the other guy does - well, that's his problem. It's none of my concern".
How common is the above view? I'd assert, that it's not very common at all. Why? Because when we observe things with which we disagree, we're not merely offended or repulsed. We regard the matter as debasing the human condition, cheapening society overall, making the world worse overall, less livable and less appealing. Our instinct is to legislate the problem away, or in a more sly and passive-aggressive approach, to insist that existing laws, that already oppose the practice, be more rigorously enforced.
Where we find imbalance and asymmetry between liberal and conservative, is upon recognizing, that for a century or more, America was more conservative in many ways than Western Europe. America was more religious, more agrarian, more localized than centralized. It was, in a matter of speaking, exceptional. This is starting to change. For liberals, the changes aren't coming fast enough. For conservatives, they're too fast, not to mention unwelcome.
Where we find imbalance and asymmetry between liberal and conservative, is upon recognizing, that for a century or more, America was more conservative in many ways than Western Europe. America was more religious, more agrarian, more localized than centralized. It was, in a matter of speaking, exceptional. This is starting to change. For liberals, the changes aren't coming fast enough. For conservatives, they're too fast, not to mention unwelcome.
Western European countries claim to be liberal.
But they are much less welcoming of uneducated, lower-class immigrants from Third World countries than the United States is.
Somehow, those kind of immigrants never make it into Europe in nearly the same numbers as they do in the United States.
But they are much less welcoming of uneducated, lower-class immigrants from Third World countries than the United States is.
Somehow, those kind of immigrants never make it into Europe in nearly the same numbers as they do in the United States.
Exceptions abound. Recall what happened in Germany in 2015. Or with Ukrainian refugees currently fanning throughout Europe.
European attitude towards immigration is leavened by myriad historical factors. Most European countries have had settled populations since, oh, the year 700. There are strong ethno-cultural identities. In America this is simply not so. California is becoming increasingly Hispanic, legally or illegally. Well, 200 years ago, it was 100% Hispanic. Germany was German since the tribal migrations after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Bit of a difference, no?
Europe never really developed a tradition of immigration. America did. In say 1850, the Irish didn't move to England. Or to France. Or to Poland. They didn't go to Catholic countries with mild climates, like their own. Instead they went to America, 3500 miles away.
One of my recurring arguments on this Forum, is that America isn't even properly a country. It's a coffeehouse for the world. To be an American Citizen simply means to have a frequent coffee drinker membership card. It's no more a matter of personal or ethno-cultural identity, than it is to have a plastic card from Starbucks. I don't feel that way about Germany or England. You can't really be German until at very least you've learned the language and absorbed the culture. To be American, requires neither. You just need a plastic card... in particular, a green one.
Exceptions abound. Recall what happened in Germany in 2015. Or with Ukrainian refugees currently fanning throughout Europe.
European attitude towards immigration is leavened by myriad historical factors. Most European countries have had settled populations since, oh, the year 700. There are strong ethno-cultural identities. In America this is simply not so. California is becoming increasingly Hispanic, legally or illegally. Well, 200 years ago, it was 100% Hispanic. Germany was German since the tribal migrations after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Bit of a difference, no?
Europe never really developed a tradition of immigration. America did. In say 1850, the Irish didn't move to England. Or to France. Or to Poland. They didn't go to Catholic countries with mild climates, like their own. Instead they went to America, 3500 miles away.
One of my recurring arguments on this Forum, is that America isn't even properly a country. It's a coffeehouse for the world. To be an American Citizen simply means to have a frequent coffee drinker membership card. It's no more a matter of personal or ethno-cultural identity, than it is to have a plastic card from Starbucks. I don't feel that way about Germany or England. You can't really be German until at very least you've learned the language and absorbed the culture. To be American, requires neither. You just need a plastic card... in particular, a green one.
And that is what is wrong with our country now because liberals have made the above so. It didn't used to be that way. Immigrants assimilated into our society and we adopted an identifying culture and language. There was very little illegal immigration to. Times have changed and not for the better. Our country is losing it's heart and soul and divisiness has taken over.
The fundamental difference between diehard Conservatives and Progressives is that the former doesn't know when to make changes, and the latter doesn't know when to stop. A real yin-yang of cognitive oopsies.
Liberals live in misery and want everyone to be miserable with them and conservatives want to live life to the fullest and be free of government regulations and hold backs.
The fundamental difference between diehard Conservatives and Progressives is that the former doesn't know when to make changes, and the latter doesn't know when to stop. A real yin-yang of cognitive oopsies.
Conservatives will accept good changes but not bad ones. Does that not make sense?
Conservatives will accept good changes but not bad ones. Does that not make sense?
Yes, that makes perfect sense generically. Convincing conservatives that a change is good, or doesn't go too far, is like convincing a progressive that restraint is good, or isn't too restrictive often times. There's a spectrum, some of which is of course subjective. The generalization I made previously was just to reflect how people are shaped by their experience and/or upbringing, which can cause one to become myopic and ideologically entrenched. There's also the issue that most people believe that what's good for them is worthy of being forced upon others (regardless of their political affiliation). It's a human instinct, but one we ought to moderate in reasonable fashion.
And to note, the above isn't an appeal to centrism as an ideology, but an appeal to recognize the distinction between how we live our lives as individuals and families versus what we would seek to impose by force (via the government gun) upon others. It's also an appeal to force one's mind to conform to the evidence of reality, rather than the other way around. Some things are very much worthy of conservation, while others are worthy of change. How much change is worthy of dispassionate analysis and good-faith debate, of course, and the most meaningful change (legitimate progress) has historically happened more gradually over time — sometimes for good and sometimes for ill. It's a nuanced evaluation, in any case.
Thanks for your reply.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
