[heavy]

Best example I can give...

Durham, NC City Council just banned Jordan Peterson from speaking there. (regardless of how you feel about the guy, it's crazy extreme to ban his lecture)

Quote:

...
We would like to be clear that we respect Mr. Peterson’s right to hold his opinions and to freely state his opinions without government interference. However, we wish to emphasize that a person’s right to free speech does not include the right to a platform or an audience.
...

This is this is maybe 10% of the Facebook post. It's amazing how long and boring Liberals have to spew to simply say, "we don't like you so much that you are not welcome here".

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

(07-10-2018 04:12 AM)Suits Wrote:  

I'm quite confused. I'm trying to figure out if I am one of those liberals who lives in a conservative city.

There are a number of factors that muddy the waters. First, Beijing (my city of residence) is in what is officially a communist country. On the other hand, values are very conservative. People shame sluts and fatties.

But it gets complicated. China is a place of political totalitarianism that looks more like the form of government favourite by the extreme right than anything that Marx ever described or recommended. There's no immigration (definitely right-wing), no rights (definitely more of a right-wing ideal, since the left obsesses about rights, whereas the right side of the political spectrum doesn't view individual rights as a big priority). Heck, you're not even guaranteed citizenship even if you're born in the country to two citizens, which is an issue that would definitely upset any liberal, but not necessarily conservatives.

As a result, I'm rather stumped. Can someone help me out here?

I'm surprised you think the right favors political totalitarianism. I've always seen the right as favoring minimal government, minimal regulation, and low taxes. In other words, freedom.

Liberals are the ones who want the government to directly control the largest possible portion of the economy, and to regular all behavior: economic, education, media, family, dating, child rearing, speech, what you eat, what kind of car you can drive, how big a house you can build, and anything else you can think of. That is totalitarian.

[cascadecombo]

I'm curious, Going Strong, I can understand you are starkly against leftist's and their policies. In an ideal world how would you like to see them considered/ exist as/ or something of that like?

[The Black Knight]

The bigger question is: how do you stop liberal migration?

As I've said before, Florida and Texas are on the cusp of turning solid blue due to demographic trends and if that happens, it's game over at the national level. Very conservative areas like Idaho are now getting flooded with libtards of all places. Give it a generation or two and once conservative places will be battleground states (like Colorado).

Liberals have proven (via many of the wonderful places they have destroyed) that they are selfish virtue signalers who don't want to live with the consequences of their decisions.

Some brainstorm ideas to solve the liberal migration problem (however technically illegal/far-fetched/dangerous/has untended consequences):

1. Ban register democrats from moving to a state. Must remain a register republican for 4 years prior to moving.

2. Make voting records public or at least accessible by a state immigration office. If you voted for the opposing party in your own state, you are denied entry until you vote with the other party in your own state for at least one election cycle.

3. Create liberal city-states (as in countries; not states of the USA) that have their own separate passports. The Bay Area, New York City, and Chicago would be the three big obvious choices (1 or all of them). I like this idea because the liberals already gravitate towards these places in mass droves and are present in high numbers. If they want to come to the new USA, they have to apply to emigrate (which would be based on merit, prior political affiliation, etc). The new USA would be like this forum where most people are in agreement on the basics and we duke out the nuances; as oppose to the current USA where the two major governing ideologies are a worlds apart.

The point of the above ideas is to get liberals to live with the consequences of their decisions (which will change some minds and maybe fix the problem from within) AND isolate the damage.

The bottom line is that your typical liberal person has simply lost the plot and lives in a subjective reality where facts and case history (i.e. like migration in western Europe) don't exist. The funny thing is, they say the same thing about people like us; we are the one's who live in LaLa Land. The difference is, the liberals think they are morally justified in taking violent action against conservatives now while conservatives just want to be left the hell alone in their conservative communities. I don't see this difference in ideologies resolving without significant conflict and/or changes to the make-up of the USA in the somewhat near future.

At the end of the day, the liberals want the USA to be like Sweden while conservatives want something sort of in the realm of Singapore/Hong Kong/Switzerland. Unfortunately if Trump doesn't turn the tide (he's doing a damn good job thus far; particularly on the immigration front) AND the liberal migration problem isn't ultimately addressed, the USA will likely descend into something resembling Brazil in many parts.

I don't have a solid solution for the liberal migration problem but we better work together to start thinking up some workable ideas sooner rather than later.

[Going strong]

(07-10-2018 12:21 PM)cascadecombo Wrote:  

I'm curious, Going Strong, I can understand you are starkly against leftist's and their policies. In an ideal world how would you like to see them considered/ exist as/ or something of that like?

In the case of "Liberals" who have relocated to very Conservative cities or countries, I would like them to realize that, in all honesty (and considering the fact they are enjoying, in their daily lives, the many benefices of Conservatism), they'd have to rethink their past political allegiance, and consider voting for the Right (if only out of gratitude).

On the other hand, if Leftists would absolutely not consider changing their ways, and insist on destroying the cities or whole countries they live in (notably through extreme socialist policies, lesbianism and open border policies), and in the "ideal world" you are referring to, I would like them to obey with the rules (1, 2 and ideally 3) described above by The Black Knight. They should be prevented from moving to wealthy and secure Conservative places, by law, until they officially renounce socialism, LGBT promotion and extreme multiku.

So, to sum it up, in this ideal world, we would first try to convince our enemies to become our friends and allies. Then if it does not work, we would prohibit them from entering our lands, and wish them luck in their own lands (we could even do some occasional business with them, that is until their economies collapse entirely).

Matter of fact, in History many (political, but even Church) leaders tried to do just that: Try to convince opponents to be allies and friends, for years and even decades, through patient explanations and demonstrations. Then, if opponents don't want to budge and adapt to the necessities of the world and free economies, then other options were, and are to be, pursued: in the past it was often war, but now it should be other, non-lethal, quieter options. For example, options described above by The Black Knight.

I might even have other ideas, like:
Every "Liberal" person, every registered "Democrat (socialist)" who comes into a Conservative place, has two mutually exclusive options: Option 1) sign a document, legally binding, wherein he commits to host in his house the next illegal migrant who will cross the border, for five years and at his own cost. Or Option 2) renounce socialism and multiku, and instead commit to vote for Conservative candidates and fight against LGBT adoption.

[deuce]

(07-10-2018 07:31 AM)Redcloud Wrote:  

But I do challenge you to realize that the notion of marrying a Filipina and bringing her to the U.S. would not be possible without liberals; the people who campaigned for civil and equal rights.

Even today, bringing a foreign women into a conservative American town would raise a lot of eyebrows, and would be only barely socially acceptable. Many true conservatives would consider you a liberal or at the very least, an outsider, for such a move.

How about true Scotsmen? What would they think?

Men have been marring foreign women and bringing them home for centuries. Of course, generally the religions were the same or at least close; to say Cletus' wife would get the same raised eyebrow whether she be Saudi or Mexican is absurd.

[Going strong]

(07-10-2018 02:09 PM)deuce Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 07:31 AM)Redcloud Wrote:  

But I do challenge you to realize that the notion of marrying a Filipina and bringing her to the U.S. would not be possible without liberals; the people who campaigned for civil and equal rights.

Even today, bringing a foreign women into a conservative American town would raise a lot of eyebrows, and would be only barely socially acceptable. Many true conservatives would consider you a liberal or at the very least, an outsider, for such a move.

How about true Scotsmen? What would they think?

Men have been marring foreign women and bringing them home for centuries. Of course, generally the religions were the same or at least close; to say Cletus' wife would get the same raised eyebrow whether she be Saudi or Mexican is absurd.

I agree with deuce. In France for example, Conservative people would have no problem with you bringing a slim, cute Vietnamese or Filipina woman for marriage. Given that Vietnamese have (in France) a positive reputation, dating from the times of the brave and deserving "boat people" fleeing communism; and Filipinas have a reputation of humble, nice and devout Christians.

Now if you bring in a woman with a hijab, or a fat lady from Burkina, then Conservative people will dislike that around you in your neighborhood, certainly.

But in any case, if one is over 35, I doubt that even very Conservative first-world men would resent, reproach, you bringing in a foreign woman. As everybody knows that, at over-35 of age, you cannot have great expectations of finding high-quality wife material on the local first-world market.

The only people that would hate on you in this case, are local post-wall White women (whether Conservative or socialist ones), who usually hate the Asian competition of young and slim women. But this is another subject.

[marcusdivincenzo]

(07-10-2018 12:42 PM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

Some brainstorm ideas to solve the liberal migration problem (however technically illegal/far-fetched/dangerous/has untended consequences):

1. Ban register democrats from moving to a state. Must remain a register republican for 4 years prior to moving.

Excluding liberals from states isn't an option because US citizens have freedom of movement between states.

States could secede from the union and exclude whoever. However, the ideological divide isn't really drawn on state lines, it's more rural vs urban. So secession still leaves you with the neoliberal cancer in your state.

One idea, for people that want to live in cities, is to create gated communities where membership is based on political affiliation. The internet would make it easy to recruit for and organize such a community. The idea is to run it as independently as possible (e.g. own schools, private security firm, etc).

[Tail Gunner]

(07-10-2018 04:12 AM)Suits Wrote:  

I'm quite confused. I'm trying to figure out if I am one of those liberals who lives in a conservative city.

There are a number of factors that muddy the waters. First, Beijing (my city of residence) is in what is officially a communist country. On the other hand, values are very conservative. People shame sluts and fatties.

But it gets complicated. China is a place of political totalitarianism that looks more like the form of government favourite by the extreme right than anything that Marx ever described or recommended. There's no immigration (definitely right-wing), no rights (definitely more of a right-wing ideal, since the left obsesses about rights, whereas the right side of the political spectrum doesn't view individual rights as a big priority). Heck, you're not even guaranteed citizenship even if you're born in the country to two citizens, which is an issue that would definitely upset any liberal, but not necessarily conservatives.

As a result, I'm rather stumped. Can someone help me out here?

Communists and fascists share an authoritarian outlook and both call for the expansion of state power -- and both systems therefore have much in common. Despite being commonly considered to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum, fascism and communism are actually quite similar in their aims and results and are best visualized as meeting in a circle.

   

This is because the common aspects of both systems are the most influential ones: both ideologies reject individualism, free markets, absolute private property, democratic voting, and any religions that oppose the state, while they promote centralized government, one-party totalitarian rule, a planned economy, cronyism, government as the agent of change in society, the use of rallies and propaganda to promote the establishment, and the use of force to achieve political and social goals.

Never forget that Nazi was an abbreviation for the "National Socialist German Workers' Party." The Nazis gained power by professing socialist goals.

Marx was simply a fool whose ideology was used as public relations tool by communists to gain absolute power, much like Muslims use the Koran to claim the status of a religion when Islam is really a political system of conquest with the stated aim of world domination.

[Contagion]

(07-10-2018 12:42 PM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

At the end of the day, the liberals want the USA to be like Sweden while conservatives want something sort of in the realm of Singapore/Hong Kong/Switzerland. Unfortunately if Trump doesn't turn the tide (he's doing a damn good job thus far; particularly on the immigration front) AND the liberal migration problem isn't ultimately addressed, the USA will likely descend into something resembling Brazil in many parts.

I don't have a solid solution for the liberal migration problem but we better work together to start thinking up some workable ideas sooner rather than later.

Liberals can't get it through their heads that the United States can never be like Sweden because we are not a high trust and homogeneous society like they were for all of their history, with the exception of all the madness going on recently.

Conservatives can't get it through their heads that the United States can never be like Singapore because we are not a high trust and homogeneous society like Singapore is (not sure if it's been that way historically or not).

In any case, until white people decide that it's worth it to stick together and to start having larger families, it's over for the US as far as ever having another conservative president. You were absolutely right Black Knight, Florida and Texas are as good as gone in the next 20 years. The best we can hope for is civic nationalism under a liberal president.

Of course, that type of civic nationalism will come with the understanding that everything whites accomplished in America beforehand was evil. But that won't be a problem when America is 20% white, nobody will care about our opinion by then anyways.

But for Europe, the situation is much more dire. You not only have a clash of races/ethnicities like we have in the US, but you also have a clash of religions and a clash of civilizations.

The non-whites in Europe vote for non-conservative politicians right now, but mark my words, when their numbers swell they will make their presence felt. Europe hasn't seen anything yet.

[Only One Man]

Are you talking about just the US and Europe or the world?

[ChasInSin]

The United States could be like Singapore if you turned it into a toltalitarian, yet benevolent police state. Restrict freedom of speech, carefully control immigration, maintain a majority race in power and demographics, carefully maintain race percentages, manage where minorities live so that one race does not become dominate in a particular area, force integration, stifle free speech, restrict protests, limit unions, crack down hard on crime and political protests, don’t allow foreign companies or organisations any influence in politics, maintain one political party in power, with a strong leader, etc....Could never happen with the Constitution, but it’s fun to think about.

[Dalaran1991]

If Going Strong are gonna wife up one of my beautiful and vicious country-women, I think it should be required by the laws for the children to be kept in Vietnam That way they will be raised into strong, traditional boys and girls (though I highly suggest girls. French-Viet mixed girls are among the most beautiful specimens I see out there next to Kazakstan-Sicilian) who loves martial arts and cooking.

Can you imagine GS raising his kids in France or America and they become bitchy whiny Westerners? One of him is enough, I don't think even RVF can survive a GS troll death squad

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Durham, NC Wrote:

a person’s right to free speech does not include the right to a platform or an audience

[hv123]

It's the same as with immigration from 3rd world countries to the first world. E.g people come in from mexico waving flags and voting for the same policies and acting the same way that turned mexico in to a corrupt state rather than a spanish speaking version of the USA.

[Going strong]

(07-11-2018 03:26 AM)Only One Man Wrote:  

Are you talking about just the US and Europe or the world?

About the world in general.

I'll give you an example: A few months ago I met in Bulgaria a couple of quite peaceful (though more than a bit snobby) Brits. Hubby and wife of sixty years of age, enjoying the sweetness of life in Varna (zero-visible diversity, zero-crime city).

I asked them why they came to live in Varna, as I had heard them talking shit about Brexiteers, the Right, The Church and Conservative politicians.

Well, the (short-lived) dialogue went like that:

GS: "So why did you choose Bulgaria?"

Brit retirees: "Oh we like it here, it's nice, it's like before"
-note: (all tourists to Varna say the same: "it's like before here, we like it")-

GS: "Like before what?"

Brit retirees blushing: "Like before, before, we mean, like... like it was before."

GS smiling: "You mean, before the great third-world migrations into Western Europe, don't you?"

Brit retirees blushing more and starting to sweat: "Oh no no, not like that, but... it's just that... it's like before, here in Bulgaria, like when we were young"

GS: "You mean, there are no crimes in the streets, no diversity, no terrorism, no visible minorities, right? That's what like before means, yes? So, you long after the Conservative days of Europe, you're fed up with the situation in the West, and you have run to an homogeneous place, is that it?"

At which point the Brit old lady left in shock, actually trembling, while hubby audibly gritted his old teeth, and my Bulgarian friends laughed at the scene.

So, anyway, these are the kind of expats whom I call unbearably hypocritical: The "Liberals" who relocate to Conservative, very nationalistic places like EE or the whole of Asia, but still they refuse to admit the reasons behind their choice, and they refuse to vote for the Right when back in their own countries.

Same goes with expats in Asia. Liberals they are not, as they have willingly chosen the most nationalistic and homogeneous-looking countries of Earth. So why do some of them still vote for the Left? Well, earlier on this thread, nomadbrah and gework have explained why: thread-69150...pid1817013 and thread-69150...pid1816983

[Going strong]

(07-11-2018 07:12 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

If Going Strong are gonna wife up one of my beautiful and vicious country-women, I think it should be required by the laws for the children to be kept in Vietnam That way they will be raised into strong, traditional boys and girls (though I highly suggest girls. French-Viet mixed girls are among the most beautiful specimens I see out there next to Kazakstan-Sicilian) who loves martial arts and cooking.

Can you imagine GS raising his kids in France or America and they become bitchy whiny Westerners? One of him is enough, I don't think even RVF can survive a GS troll death squad

Matter of fact, I am kind of a DDS , but it's not related (though of course it is) to Davao's Death Squad, but to Duterte Die-Hard Supporter.

Even though, by the way, I dare humbly say that Conservative President Duterte should now overcome and tame a bit his dislike of the Church, dislike due to unfortunate events in his youth - but this is another matter altogether.

Talking about the Philippines, it's a good example: I wonder how all these "Liberal" expats can still live there, post-Duterte, when their (erroneous and soft-hearted) principles should have led them to take the next plane to San Francisco.

Quoting Dalaran: One of him is enough, I don't think even RVF can survive a GS troll death squad

If I someday multiply into GS and mini-me GSs, we'll be so strong, we'll hold the Forum hostage for:

[cascadecombo]

(07-10-2018 01:47 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 12:21 PM)cascadecombo Wrote:  

I'm curious, Going Strong, I can understand you are starkly against leftist's and their policies. In an ideal world how would you like to see them considered/ exist as/ or something of that like?

In the case of "Liberals" who have relocated to very Conservative cities or countries, I would like them to realize that, in all honesty (and considering the fact they are enjoying, in their daily lives, the many benefices of Conservatism), they'd have to rethink their past political allegiance, and consider voting for the Right (if only out of gratitude).

On the other hand, if Leftists would absolutely not consider changing their ways, and insist on destroying the cities or whole countries they live in (notably through extreme socialist policies, lesbianism and open border policies), and in the "ideal world" you are referring to, I would like them to obey with the rules (1, 2 and ideally 3) described above by The Black Knight. They should be prevented from moving to wealthy and secure Conservative places, by law, until they officially renounce socialism, LGBT promotion and extreme multiku.

So, to sum it up, in this ideal world, we would first try to convince our enemies to become our friends and allies. Then if it does not work, we would prohibit them from entering our lands, and wish them luck in their own lands (we could even do some occasional business with them, that is until their economies collapse entirely).

Matter of fact, in History many (political, but even Church) leaders tried to do just that: Try to convince opponents to be allies and friends, for years and even decades, through patient explanations and demonstrations. Then, if opponents don't want to budge and adapt to the necessities of the world and free economies, then other options were, and are to be, pursued: in the past it was often war, but now it should be other, non-lethal, quieter options. For example, options described above by The Black Knight.

Or Option 2) renounce socialism and multiku, and instead commit to vote for Conservative candidates and fight against LGBT adoption.

https://hollowverse.com/mark-twain/

Quote:

Political Views
Twain was a liberal in his time, and might still be considered a liberal today.

https://hollowverse.com/Bill_Gates

Quote:

If we must put Gates into the political spectrum, though, we must look to the money he's given to political campaigns. However, there are discrepancies. One report has Gates' political donations from 2002 to 2012 at almost $442,000–with most, but not all of that went to Republicans.6

Another has Gates' political donations from 1999 to 2012 at almost $436,000, with roughly 8% more going to Democrats.7

Newsmeat.com (my favorite) has Gates' political contributions from 1986 to 2011 at a little more than $418,000, with slightly more going to Democrats.8 So, something fishy is going on there, but we'll go with Democrat. It's 2 out of 3.

https://hollowverse.com/abraham-lincoln/

another note as to how the parties change.

Quote:

Political Views
Lincoln was the first Republican president. He also championed freeing the slaves, his greatest legacy. His focus on individual freedoms and liberties probably would have put him the in Libertarian camp in today's American political environment.

https://hollowverse.com/albert-einstein/

Quote:

Political Views
Einstein was a great advocate of democracy, freedom, and equality. He was often at odds with whatever political malaise he found himself in from opposing the Nazis while in Germany to opposing the creation of the Jewish state as a Jew to advocating for socialism in the U.S.

After looking back in time at those who were considered liberal I can't get on board with your train of thought. A common notion is that liberals are far more creative than conservatives, without them our quality of life would not be what it is today.

Rather than drawing lines in the sand between us and them society needs to figure out how to work together.

(07-10-2018 01:47 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

I might even have other ideas, like:
Every "Liberal" person, every registered "Democrat (socialist)" who comes into a Conservative place, has two mutually exclusive options: Option 1) sign a document, legally binding, wherein he commits to host in his house the next illegal migrant who will cross the border, for five years and at his own cost.

Why not take it a step further, they could be issued armbands for "wrong think" if they wanted to live in conservative cities.

[Going strong]

I wondered who would first earn his Godwin point, and we have a winner.



So you really think that prohibiting wealthy lesbians and snobby Leftists from emigrating to our hard-working Conservative cities, is tantamount to putting Jews in camps?

Anyway, it's always like that, if you try to reason with "Liberals": once they are cornered, they get upset and start accusing you of muh Hitler. Sad.

[cascadecombo]

It's quite easy to take an obvious joke made from the extrapolation of what I see as an absurd suggestion. But before you try to pounce on that, what about the other actual points I made? It's real easy to put up your shield and claim you're being attacked, but it's rather hard to open your eyes and look around when it's covering your face.

And before you start spinning your hamster thinking I'm trying to propagate extreme leftism, I feel obliged to say that extremism on both ends in my opinion are harmful to society.

[Going strong]

(07-11-2018 03:23 PM)cascadecombo Wrote:  

It's quite easy to take an obvious joke made from the extrapolation of what I see as an absurd suggestion.

Oh, for you it is a joke to accuse me of promoting Nazi politics, complete with a picture of a terrified, humiliated Jewish boy?

Not for me. Several members of my family have actually died fighting the Nazis, in the French army (an army that did not "surrender at once", as fake-news Historians like to write).

In which world do you live in, my friend, where pics of terrified Jewish boys, from Warsaw ghetto or some, are a joke? I might be (quoting) "a dark heartless Conservative", but do you see me posting pics of Jewish kids from a war ghetto, "as a joke"?

[polar]

[MajorStyles]

(07-10-2018 02:23 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

There is a particular type of (profoundly hypocritical) people who annoy me: the so-called Liberals, who choose very Conservative cities to relocate and live in.

That applies to their travel plans as well. I know a young liberal couple that just took their first trip outside the US. So where did they go...Burkina Faso? Bolivia? Hell to the no! They went to Spain and Portugal.

Hypocrisy is the name of their game.

[Redcloud]

(07-11-2018 06:35 PM)MajorStyles Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 02:23 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

There is a particular type of (profoundly hypocritical) people who annoy me: the so-called Liberals, who choose very Conservative cities to relocate and live in.

That applies to their travel plans as well. I know a young liberal couple that just took their first trip outside the US. So where did they go...Burkina Faso? Bolivia? Hell to the no! They went to Spain and Portugal.

Hypocrisy is the name of their game.

What's wrong with Spain and Portugal? Both dope places to visit.

Do conservatives visit Mexico on their vacations, because so many Christians live there? Nah, they're actively trying to build a wall to keep those people out. Talk about hypocrisy.

There is bullshit on both sides of the aisle. This "holier than thou" nonsense from conservatives is exhausting.

[MajorStyles]

(07-11-2018 09:36 PM)Redcloud Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 06:35 PM)MajorStyles Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 02:23 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

There is a particular type of (profoundly hypocritical) people who annoy me: the so-called Liberals, who choose very Conservative cities to relocate and live in.

That applies to their travel plans as well. I know a young liberal couple that just took their first trip outside the US. So where did they go...Burkina Faso? Bolivia? Hell to the no! They went to Spain and Portugal.

Hypocrisy is the name of their game.

What's wrong with Spain and Portugal? Both dope places to visit.

Do conservatives visit Mexico on their vacations, because so many Christians live there? Nah, they're actively trying to build a wall to keep those people out. Talk about hypocrisy.

There is bullshit on both sides of the aisle. This "holier than thou" nonsense from conservatives is exhausting.

The OP commented on Liberals choosing places to live. So I expanded on his idea. If he would have said something regarding Conservatives, then I might have chimed in (there's plenty of room for critique there).