What Liberal Fascism? Part 1
May 18th, 2008 at 01:45pm Mark Noonan
Jonah Goldberg has caught a lot of flack over his book Liberal Facism - but this news report just shows that liberalism is very much fascist, and this is in line with Goldberg’s thesis that it really always has been, in the sense that fascism and liberalism actually advocate the same sorts of programs, and have the same underlying mentality:
Catholic student group at the University of Queensland has been censored and threatened with disaffiliation from the school’s student union because student union leaders believed the group’s “pro-woman” and “pro-pregnancy” campaign took a stand against abortion.
As part of a pregnancy support campaign, the Newman Society at the school displayed a poster and distributed leaflets that bore a photo of an eight-week old fetus in the womb.
According to The Australian, a disciplinary hearing run by the student union’s clubs and societies committee has banned the Newman Society from again displaying the material on a booth outside the student café. The society was placed on 12 months’ probation and must submit all future material to three officials, including the student union president, for approval.
Newman Society secretary Elise Nally, a third-year applied science student, said the union’s action was totalitarian and against free speech.
“I’d like to know what laws we’ve broken,” Nally said. “The union is acting like a dictator.”
Student union president Joshua Young, who is associated with the Liberal Party, described the reasons for the decision.
“I know the Newman Society thinks the union is being heavy handed, but the student union voted in 1993 for free, safe abortion on demand so all women have a genuine choice when faced with unwanted pregnancy,” he said.
A minority of the university’s 30,000 students voted in the 1993 referendum. According to The Australian, Young said the vote was about 1900 in favor of abortion rights, 1400 against, and 200 abstaining.
When asked if the vote precludes other views being advocated in campus debate, Young said “It does.”
15 years ago 6.3% of the students on campus voted in favor of government funded abortion on demand, and according to liberal Joshua Young, this settled the matter forever, because that is in line with liberal ideology, which is always good. If this isn’t fascist thinking, then I don’t know what is.
We see this here in the United States, too - in the demand that people nominated as Supreme Court justices declare themselves opposed to an overturn of Roe, which in spite of being an unconstitutional bastardization of the very concept of law, has now been mortised in time by liberals and acquired the status of holy writ, and it cannot be questioned…because it is in agreement with liberal thinking, which is always good. The problem here is not Young’s opposition to pro-life views, but his insistence that one cannot dissent from the group, which voted in favor of abortion on demand…
Entry Filed under: General Government, Kook Left, Life Issues, Popular Culture, Religion, Social Issues, Supreme Court
47 Comments
1. Kahn | May 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
This is EXACTLY the kind of thinking I ran into talking to my coworker last week.
Liberals control the entertainment industry and fill comedies, dramas, and mysteries with attacks on conservatives and mis-information. This includes TV and movies.
Liberals control the vast majority of News outlets. And do the same.
And what little opposition that does exist is attacked as stupid and evil. FOX News, talk radio, the handful of non-liberal newspapers. You don’t even have to be conservative. FOX News has been found in multiple studies to be the most fair and balanced news on TV. Thats not good enough for liberals. If you’re not spouting THEIR views then you are the enemy.
Honestly, this totalitarian view is what frightens me about their plans to confiscate guns. You don’t have to scratch a truly dedicated liberal very hard before they start justifying confiscation. You can even goad them into admitting that they would love to actually do just that.
Problem is… OUR party lost it’s spine some years back leaving us almost defenseless against these jerks. Oh, I’m sorry…. hating totalitarian fascists is hate speech, isn’t it?
2. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 18th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Since you chaps like talking about slippery slopes, the voice of the people and judicial activism I think you have a probelm following this course. Less than 25% of the eligible people, 4 618 673, voted to keep marriage as between one man and one woman in California when the vote was taken in 2000 despite a voter registration of 14 million? The student union voted and that becomes the law. Were there a student judicial council that could review it for fairness then they could review the vote and decide based upon the student constitution that a pro life stance is more suitable to the opinion of the student body.
Now does that place all of these sorts of issues in a better context? It appears that when you do not get your way Liberals are fascists and when you get your way by the same methods it is the ‘will o’ the people.”
And btw the Liberal Party of Australia is the Centre-Right party more like moderate members of the GOP in comparison. John Howard is the Liberal party Prime Minister and if I recall correctly a close political ally of George W Bush.
3. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 18th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Correction: Howard was PM until December of 2007 when he was replaced by Brendan Nelson.
From left to right for perspective:
Greens-Democrats-Labor-Liberals-Nationals-Family First
The closest thing to compare with the views of most of the commenters here is the Family First Party
4. neocon | May 18th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
So Cav,
Are you telling us that when the majority favors your agenda than the majority is right, however when the majority is not supporting your agenda, than the minority is being oppressed?
Yes, I think it is. Liberals are so transparently stupid.
5. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 18th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
No, neocon that is what Mark is stating by posting this about the college in Queensland. He does not like the decision because of what? There were not enough students who voted? Well, applying that logic there were not enough who voted for Prop 22.
The point I really want to make is that a student union in Q’land has little to do with how the US government works vis-a-vis laws and judicial review. And feel free to call me stupid anytime that really only serves to make my points more clearly. Sort of like the cayenne in a good chili.
6. Jeremiah | May 18th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Parents are failing! BADLY!
Parents are failing!
Parents are failing!
Save America!
Save America!
Save America!
Raise your children!
Raise your children!
Raise your children!
In the Church!
In the Church!
In the Church!
7. HeyHey | May 18th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Quick rules of fasism….Which party is doing what?
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens’ groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law
8. neocon | May 18th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Cav,
Liberals have for years complained about the oppression of the minority, only when, however that minority is of material difference to their agenda. When that minority does not fall in line with their agenda-driven paradigm, then MAJORTITY RULES!
Case in point: Liberals vociferously defend groups like NAMBLA to exist, but excoriate pro-life groups. Liberals attempt to silence right wing religious groups while supporting atheist efforts to secularize society.
See how that works? Why wont you support all groups to have their voice and place in society. Wouldn’t that be “progressive”?
9. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 18th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
neocon,
Take a deep breath my friend and name a single national figure living or dead that advocates for a criminal organization like NAMBLA? What liberals of any stripe no matter how insignificant unless they are a member of this wretched organ have ever said, “Oh sure they have a right to do that.”
10. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 18th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
If right wing religious groups wanted to tell people what they could do rather than what they demand people not do I think their arguments would be received differently. Religious groups have no right to tell other people how to live their lives or that all of society has to follow their views. Democracies just do not work that way. I am sorry gay marriage offends you but I think the rampant numbers of divorces bears out there is very little sanctity being doled out on the opposite sex marriage side for their to be any conclusion drawn other than a whole lot of people married in church weddings are less qualified as couples to be together for the long haul.
11. SimonNZ | May 18th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Well done genius. If you’d bothered to check you’d have discovered the Liberal Party in Australia is the CONSERVATIVE PARTY!!! The “liberal left” party is the Labor party.
The Liberal Party, which just lost the Australian election was headed by Prime Minister John Howard who joined Bush and Blair in the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq.
Some basic fact checking might be in order before your next misguided diatribe….
12. bongoman | May 18th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
It’s highly authoritarian behaviour but is it really fascist?
Why conflate authoritarianism with fascism?
Fascism is one flavor of authoritarian control - but not all authoritarian control is fascist.
13. Danish Artist | May 18th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy - Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Insurance, Medical Industry, etc, etc, etc.
2. Create a gulag - Government (public) schools
3. Develop a thug caste - US military
4. Set up an internal surveillance system - IRS, FCC - Fairness Doctrine
5. Harass citizens’ groups - Christian groups, any group non-liberal
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release - Elian Gonzales, Clinton pardons, any non-liberal whistle-blower,etc. etc.
7. Target key individuals - George Bush, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, any church organization, etc etc etc
8. Control the press - Fairness Doctrine
9. Dissent equals treason - anyone who goes against the liberal caste - Traficante, Lieberman, etc. etc.
10. Suspend the rule of law - anti-gun lawsuit in New York city, where the 2nd amendment has been motioned to be ignored, any liberal politician scandal, Immigration laws that will disallow millions of potential democrat voters, etc etc.
This damned liberal Democrats, good catch heyhey
14. Mark Noonan | May 18th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Cav,
What I was pointing out is that a very few made a decision 15 years ago, and according to liberal ideology, since the decision favored liberalism is not only can’t be changed, but can’t even be discused.
The essence of fascism is the community over the individual, with an elite deciding what is in the best interests of the community - once the “general will” is determined, there can be no dissent from the “general will”…this is called under communist systems the “party line” - you have all the free speech you want, say whatever you wish, as long as it doesn’t fall outside the party line.
15. Mark Noonan | May 18th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
SimonNZ,
Err, its still a liberal party - that in relation to Labour it isn’t quite that liberal doesn’t change the ultimate fact of its liberalism. Its been considered of the right only in the sense that any dissent from leftist thinking - and any alliance with the US under President Bush - is held by liberals to be proof of conservatism.
Australia’s Liberal Party is much better than, say, the American Democratic Party in that the Liberal Party adheres more to classical liberalism - but there is still within it those basic liberal concepts of government enhancing community and providing for the people.
16. 42 | May 18th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Deleted - comment too stupid to remain.
17. Jeremiah | May 18th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
the community over the individual is the essence of every major government–42.
True…only to an extent, 42.
There are “different strokes for different folks”, as the saying goes…the question being … what is the correct or “best” way.
Now, under republican form of government, in which case, America is, power resides in the people with elected officials and representatives entitled to vote freely without cost or obligation to the government, therefore, garunteeing us our rights. A “penumbra” of sorts … if you can call it that, in which the outer force (the people) help to form the central pivoting force to accomodate the needs and desires of the outer force.
Every society that has ever survived to become great in the eyes of the world has always been central to Christianity. Why? Because the people favor what God desires of them, following in His footsteps…and their government is formed under His rules, which benefit their safety and prosperity.
In this case, Mark is right, Liberalism is forth-rightly akin to fascism, in the sense that, like fascism, Liberalism abuses the powers…using its powers not delegated to it, ruling that the few have say over the whole. Much like in the former thread that Mark has written on Sen. Obama who is running for POTUS…Who is surrounded by those who want racial superiority. At the same time, Obama has spoken the same hopeless “hope” rhetoric over and over to try and convince people that he is akin to the “second coming of Christ” that he will “fix all the problems.” What problems?
In my view, he will add to the problems that we already have!
As I already mentioned, fascism is in advocacy of racial superiority, and a part of its philosophy can be found in the beginning philosophy of Abortion….as any one well versed in the history behind abortion and planned parenthood well knows, Margaret Sanger’s main philosophy was used as in fact for the perpetual extermination of the black race. If you don’t believe me, read up on it some time, I’m sure you’ll find it quite disturbing the stunningly disasterous philosophy was in direct relation to the same philosophy that led to the extermination of more than 12 million Jews…many of which were used as laboratory testing specimens…or better known as torture chambers.
Too, Obama is for the diarming of America, taking away funding for nuclear devices, which would destroy our military…and the taking away of every familys means of protection. Can we allow this? Well, if you don’t want to be kissing the boots of the Taliban…
In summary…He would ensure the demise of millions upon millions more unborn children, and would forcibly suppress the Will of the People of the United States.
At this point, I think it would be wise for America to take pause for a minute and ponder what lies ahead if Mr. Obama were to become POTUS.
Very scary to say the least.
18. Kahn | May 18th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Cav, the point isn’t that one vote changed the rules. Yes. We admit it did.
But one vote does not mean you can NEVER talk about it again, does it? That you can never advocate a change or another vote, does it? IF, the decision went their way.
With liberals - it does, Thats the point of the post.
19. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 18th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
14. Mark Noonan | May 18th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Go back and read that out loud. if you can do that and not laugh then you have a skill that i do not possess.
20. 42 | May 18th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
“Every society that has ever survived to become great in the eyes of the world has always been central to Christianity.
really? Name one…I can only think of…well, none, but can you try to stay on topic
“like fascism, Liberalism abuses the powers”
And your best example is that a man who is half white and half black wants racial superiority? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
How is liberalism like fascism? Could you give an example that makes sense?
“fascism is in advocacy of racial superiority”
And your example is one person, Margaret Sanger?
OK then I can say conservatism is in advocacy of racial superiority, all you have to do is look to the KKK, therefor conservatism is facism.
“Obama is for the diarming of America, taking away funding for nuclear devices, which would destroy our military…and the taking away of every familys means of protection.”
-Are you at all capable of staying on topic???
Besides, how does having a nuclear devices protect us from a rouge nation or group that has nuclear weapons? His point was the same as what Regan wanted (look it up) to have a world where NO ONE had nuclear weapons
I have no idea what point you were trying to make, Jeremiah you really make no sense
21. Pain | May 18th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Deleted - paranoid conspiracy-theory-mongering.
22. RenHouck | May 18th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
It’s obvious you don’t Mark. Go back and re-read the propaganda you spew for the ultra cons.
It will come to you. Open your eyes. You have a family. Do the right thing for once.
Yeesh.
23. Pain | May 18th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Jeremiah,
You make the point that millions upon millions of the unborn will be killed if Obama becomes president. Therefore W ehave a question . . .
How come there was no drop in the number of abortions perfomed in the US when Ronald Reagan was President from Jimmy Carter? Or why was there a record number of abortions, 1.429 million, according to the CDC in the midst of the Bush 41 administration in 1990? How can you say Obama would cause a rise in abortions when abortion has been highest when the GOP has occupied the White House?
24. Jeremiah | May 18th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
42,
That’s just a small sample I cited for which Liberals can be accounted as forth-rightly - Fascists.
There are literally hundreds if not thousands of examples fascism in the Liberal party.
Take for example the recent home schooling issue.
Uuuuhm, teaching of evolution for another.
They also want to criminalize Christians for speaking out against the disgusting behavior that is homosexuality…and this is one of the larger battles that will probably eventually result in a war.
And too, Liberals use the Supreme Court to subjugate their anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Constitutional laws.
It’s tryanny.
The initial objective though, of my post, was to point out how fascism has infiltrated the Democrat party and how this thread ties in with Obama who is extremely fascist.
He is extremely anti-trustworthy, and is one of the more important things we need to call him out on … we’ve already seen how dangerous he can be, but not everyone understands….people can’t comprehend danger until it has come upon them.
25. 42 | May 18th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Deleted - too stupid to remain.
26. Kahn | May 18th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I’ll have to admit that I can’t decypher some of the preceding posts.
Is it the point of liberal posters here that they agree with the school or not? Once a decision is made that favors the liberal agenda, is all speech on the subject forever restricted to that affirming that position? Is conservative speech to be restricted?
I don’t agree with liberals on many points. But I’m willing to listen to your positions because I assumed that we were all working towards the common good. That we differ only in approach.
But after listening to my coworker, and reading your posts I fear that you really do see us as evil and that you seek to impose your views upon us in a totalitarian way if you deem it necessary.
Am I wrong on this? Never mind the other issues we disagree on. Do you liberals believ that conservative speech and positions should be suppressed or not?
27. bongoman | May 18th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Jeremiah won’t be happy until there is a Christian theocracy in the USA and a “morality police” taking care of us.
His vision of American is way more fascist than anything discussed here.
28. Jonathan | May 18th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
They also want to criminalize Christians for speaking out against the disgusting behavior that is homosexuality…and this is one of the larger battles that will probably eventually result in a war.
Oh, for the love of Pete, Jeremiah, will you give me a break?! For the upteenth time, we are not out to get ya for your ignorant beliefs on gays/lesbians. Just don’t throw a temper tantrum when normal people call you a homophobe or a bigot.
29. Jeremiah | May 18th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Bongoman,
I’m not advocating theocracy by a long shot … I just want Liberty, and want people to understand how Liberty can be attained, and how it may be kept. However, once upon a time, there was theocracy in the USA, and it worked quite well, to be sure.
Why? Because they relied on the Divine Creator, through prayer and fasting. They had some very critical decisions to make, a great burden upon their shoulders.
They knew that it was either them, or the fascists…and so, they prayed about it, and came to the conclusion….
“We have abundant reasons to thank Providence for its many favorable interpositions in our behalf. It has at times been my only dependence, for all other resources seemed to have failed us. … Our affairs are brought to a perilous crisis that the hand of Providence, I trust, may be more conspicuous in our deliverance. The remarkable interpositions of the Divine government in the hours of our deepest distress and darkness have been too luminous to suffer me to doubt the happy issue of the present contest.”
Who was it that said that? Our very first President…George Washington.
George Washington also said,
“I now make my earnest prayer that God would have you and the States over which you preside in his holy protection; that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate the spirit of subordinations and obedience to government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow-citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field; and, finally, that he would be most graciously pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation.
So, you see….Liberty isn’t possible without reliance on and devotion to God!
No one wants war, but if you love Liberty, then fascism can’t rule. In-spite, however, in order for Liberty to reign, then the rules of a Nation must have a foundation upon what God’s Word says; cuz we don’t make the rules - He does. And this is what the Founders understood, and is why they had laws of morality that stemmed from God’s Word. Law has its basis is morality - for it determines what is “right” and “wrong” right? Certain things are right and certain things are wrong, but not according to what “I say” but what thus sayeth the Word of the Lord.
30. Casper | May 18th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Kahn,
“But after listening to my coworker, and reading your posts I fear that you really do see us as evil and that you seek to impose your views upon us in a totalitarian way if you deem it necessary.
Am I wrong on this? Never mind the other issues we disagree on. Do you liberals believ that conservative speech and positions should be suppressed or not?”
I would be very much against suppressing the speech or positions of anybody. It’s one of the things that makes this country great.
Do conservatives believe liberal speech and positions should be suppressed? There are several posters on this blog that advocated that.
31. Kahn | May 19th, 2008 at 1:44 am
bongoman - yet you refuse to answer my question if you think conservatives should be suppressed? Interesting.
Jonathan - you refuse also?
Casper - thanks for answering. Do you think that’s true about suppressing liberals? Liberals control Hollywood both movies and TV. They control the vast majority of broadcast and print news. And much of the publishing industry. 90% of broadcast journalists are registered Democrats (including by the way most at FOX). So I don’t see how conservatives could suppress liberal speech.
Meanwhile, the constant attacks on FOX (not even conservative, just not liberal) and refusal even to talk to them, and the attempts to get certain talk show hosts removed from the armed forces radio despite overwhelming popularity, the further legal attacks on conservative talk radio hosts, the attempts to re-institute the “fairness doctrine” - these moves seem to imply that liberals are not happy with merely controlling 95% of media and want it all.
If you bring up the subject in a forum like this - what you mostly get is attacked on specific issue. And well, it comes across as a justification for suppression.
Can you give some examples of where conservatives recommended systemic suppression of liberals?
I know some people have had problems with individual “liberal” authors and speakers. Though I think that some were more properly labeled America hating, or even Islamic Fascists. We DO see liberals defending THOSE peoples right to speak. Which is completely confusing considering the basic strict Islamic ways of dealing with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
But bongo and Jonathan - you’re both OK with suppression of speech? Well, well, well.
32. Hans Kung | May 19th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Before readers of this article judge the union president in his actions, you may not know that the union president’s hands are tied by the current rules of the union.
As the uq union is a voluntary association, all materials produced by student clubs affiliated to the union need to be approved by the union president. If the union president approves material that is against union policy as previously determined by referendum then the president can be summarily dismissed from office.
In this case the Newman Society put the union president in a very difficult position. They didn’t seek the approval of the president for their materials before they distributed it. Then when the president told them that the material could not go out with the official sanction of the union because it contravened settled policy, they cried foul.
It seems that this entire exercise was a cynical publicity stunt on behalf of the Newman Society to gain publicity by flagrating violating rules for union-affiliated clubs - which they were clearly aware of. The Newman Society know full well that they could have distributed materials on campus as “UQ Catholics” or whatever.
However, what they really wanted to do was cause trouble for the conservative union exec and get some publicity out of the whole exercise. If the Newman Society REALLY felt passionate about this issue, they would assemble the 1500 signatures required to hold a new referendum instead of trying to manipulate the union president into breaking the very rules that he has to keep!
As an affiliated club of long standing, this club knows FULL WELL that all club material must be approved by the Union President. This is a legal requirement as the Union is an unincorporated association and as such, the President is held to be PERSONALLY liable for all material produced by the union and its affiliates - ie. clubs and socs.
Every O Week the Newman Society gets all its materials approved by the union president. However, with regard to this occasion, this club specifically chose to NOT seek approval. Remember the Gospel of Matthew - “By their works, you shall know them.”
The clubs and socs committee (an elected body) of the union determined that your club failed to seek the approval of the president before this club distributed their materials. This rule applies to all club and societies - whether Christian, Muslim, atheist or socialist. Claimed ignorance on this matter is disingenuous as this club continued to distribute this material AFTER they were asked to seek the president’s approval.
Just as the Catholic church has canonical laws and theologies within which its members operate, so too the union. Freedom of sppech cannot be absolute because then speech that deliberately seeks to stifle others would be tolerated. A line has to be drawn somewhere. If the Catholic Students Club don’t like the union’s policies, they are free to disaffiliate!
33. Pain | May 19th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
29. Jeremiah | May 18th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
However, once upon a time, there was theocracy in the USA, and it worked quite well, to be sure.
And when exactly was this???
34. Dennis | May 19th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Jeremiah: “However, once upon a time, there was theocracy in the USA, and it worked quite well, to be sure.”
During the Puritan era (sorry - that was before the United States of America) there was de facto theocracy, at least in New England, and it worked well enough for the clergy. It didn’t work out that well for a lot of others, though - particularly for women, and especially around the town of Salem, Massachussetts in 1692.
It seems that experience might have been one of the reasons the first amendment was written into the Bill of Rights nearly a hundred years later.
Incidentally Puritans, being Calvinists, believed the church consisted only of the “elect” (being specially chosen by God). As a test of election, many New England churches required applicants for membership to testify to their personal experience of God. Since citizenship was tied to church membership, motivation for “conversion” was secular and civil as much as religious in nature - leading inevitably to widespread hypocrisy and pretense, out of fear for survival.
And that is where Jeremiah and every other theocratic idealist would take America, if they could. Why they think it better for large numbers of people to live a life of pious pretense rather than to be truthful escapes me.
35. phnx | May 19th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
“Do conservatives believe liberal speech and positions should be suppressed? There are several posters on this blog that advocated that.” Casper
Casper, the opinions of one or two individuals on a blog can hardly be taken as the policy of conservatives in general. However it is the official policy of the Democrat Party, as proposed in the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, to muzzle conservative free speech.
36. FmrMarine | May 19th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
jonathan;
>>>for your ignorant beliefs on gays/lesbians. Just don’t throw a temper tantrum when normal people call you a homophobe or a bigot.<<<
1.Normal people do NOT put their penises in another mans anas, or mouth.
2.Normal people do not criticize, and name call for pointing out a filthy perverted mental disorder.
3.”homophobe” is a buzzword - BS phrase meant to stifle argument and bigot?
4. bigot…..what is there to say? GET HELP!
Most of the strife is spiritual, non believers vs believers. The non believers has taken the murderous road of abortion, marxism, homosexuality. We havent.
37. Pain | May 19th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
The fairness doctrine no longer applies to the US FCC as it was killed in part in 1987 and in full in 2000.
38. Pain | May 19th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
36. FmrMarine | May 19th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
1. If that is the person you love more than yourself you do.
2. Homosexuality is no more a mental disorder than heterosexulaity is.
3. Homophobe is what you are, not a buzzword
4. Bigot applies also.
No Fmr Marine you just took the road to intolerance as if your beliefs are the “right” ones and all other ways of life are “abnormal.”If all your religious arm waving amounted to a hill of beans you wouldn’t have the highest rate of divorce and child abuse among very religous Americans living in red states.
Can you possibly discuss such matters rationally and without personal attacks We think not. And this is why We laugh at the very concept of “liberal fascism” because it is an oxymoron.
39. Kahn | May 19th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Pain, but many Democrats in Congress say they want the fairness doctrine back again.
Are you OK with suppressing conservative speech or not?
Really, how hard is this? You seem to be arguing that because you think we are wrong - we should not be able to speak.
Hans Kung. Thanks. But of course if they HAD sought approval it would have been denied, and liberals tipped off and they would have picketed and THAT would have been the story. Correct?
The honorable thing to do would have been for the union president to resign rather than to follow such a clearly anti-democratic rule.
Or doesn’t free speech count for much over there? Where was it a again? Myanmar?
40. phnx | May 19th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Pain.
Last year senate Democrats killed the Broadcaster Freedom Act which would have prevented the re-introduction of the Fairness Doctrine.
The Democrat leadership has promised to introduce legislation in the future to include the Fairness Doctrine.
When they do I’m sure that we can expect you to conduct a letter writing campaign against it can’t we.
41. Jeremiah | May 19th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Dennis,
Deuteronomy 8:19-20
‘And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the Lord thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which the Lord destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the Lord your God.’
42. CanadianObserver | May 20th, 2008 at 8:39 am
#34. Dennis | May 19th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
41. Jeremiah | May 19th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Dennis, the only response you will ever receive from Jeremiah, when he is unable to answer an undeniable fact, is to quote a passage from the bible.
43. Hans Kung | May 20th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Noone wants more abortions to occur. Everyone wants fewer abortions to occur. If the Catholic Student’s Society is really serious about reducing abortion, they would get active around issues of rape, poverty and accurate information about contraception.
But of course they don’t because it is all just a media stunt.
44. Some Assembly Required | May 20th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Has, Bingo!, Pushing “Abstinence only’ in a society where ’sex sells’ then wondering why abortions are such a problem is not only absurd, it’s borderline retarded. But hey, controversies make headlines and get ratings.
45. FmrMarine | May 20th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
pain
>> Editorials from Hell’s leading daily newspaper<<<
That about sums YOU up!
No more to say.
46. Gay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men &hellip | August 5th, 2008 at 2:16 am
Gay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
47. soma&hellip | August 20th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
karaAam kAyA? soma
carisoprodol soma