I am what on this site is referred to as

[Tahuyaman]

He means liberalism in its original sense.

If he's talking about classical liberalism I'd agree I thought he was talking about modern American liberalism.

[Chris]

I completely disagree. Liberalism is not about individualism. Its also not about equality. However liberalism strives for equality of outcome regardless of one's skill or effort.

What we call classical liberalism most certainly was. At the time of the Revolution, those Enlightened ideas were just taking hold so you see documents like the Declaration and Bill of Rights still address the rights of the people even while such thinkers as Jefferson mused the rights of the people were just the sum of the rights of individuals.

[Tahuyaman]

What we call classical liberalism most certainly was. At the time of the Revolution, those Enlightened ideas were just taking hold so you see documents like the Declaration and Bill of Rights still address the rights of the people even while such thinkers as Jefferson mused the rights of the people were just the sum of the rights of individuals.

See my previous comment.

[Cotton1]

Can someone translate that?

Yes. He was saying Hillary Clinton = gender confused

[Chris]

See my previous comment.

Libertarianism is founded on the Enlightened principles of individualism and equality, thus the libertarian side of conservatism is infused with it. What's odd is conservatives like Russell Kirk who despises libertarians of libertines in his Concise Guide to Conservatism embraces a moderate form of individualism, just warns it's not the selfish sort of Ayn Rand and not the mischaracterization modern liberals make of it. And that liberal criticism of individualism, too, is odd because individualism is embraced by thinkers from Rousseau to Marx which form the basis of most modern liberal ideology. There are only a few American conservatives who reject individual for communities, the little platoons of society Burke wrote of, though many European conservatives reject it altogether.

What do you think some of the so-called conservatives are arguing with me every time I reject their ideology of individualism?

[Chris]

If he's talking about classical liberalism I'd agree I thought he was talking about modern American liberalism.

The aim of modern liberalism, say from Rousseau through Marx on, is to eliminate social customs, traditions, norms, institutions by perfecting society in the individual, as Marx put it, thereby leaving a void between the abstracted, isolated, atomized individual and the state. It is very much individualistic in ideology. Equality is the key to the process, equalizing, flattening, leveling society though equality, equality before the law, equality in opportunity, equality in outcome.

[Standing Wolf]

Those terms are accurate when used to describe the depiction of gays which we both know is often deliberate and part and parcel of a particular agenda (i.e. the normalization of homosexual relationships). Those terms become absurd when used to describe something normative (e.g. heterosexual relationships). IOW, your simple reason wasn't so much simple as simple minded.

If "the normalization of homosexual relationships" is an agenda, what is the demonizing of such relationships, and the effort to minimize and dismiss them?

Funny how the other guy's plans and priorities are always an "agenda" - with a negative or derogatory connotation always attached to that word.

[Mister D]

If "the normalization of homosexual relationships" is an agenda, what is the demonizing of such relationships, and the effort to minimize and dismiss them?

Funny how the other guy's plans and priorities are always an "agenda" - with a negative or derogatory connotation always attached to that word.

Very few of us (any of us?) "demonize" or "minimize" those relationships. The problem is that virtually every objection to gay activism is labeled "demonization" or "oppression" or "bigotry" or whatever by...well people like you who have a weird emotional investment in this crusade for gay "rights".

No one has a heterosexual agenda. There is quite obviously a gay agenda and you know there is. For example, I don't think you're naive or stupid enough to believe gay activists just happen to select Christian owned bakeries for their "wedding" cakes. Obviously, those bakeries are deliberately chosen. Why? Well, you know why.

[Chris]

That's nice but very few of us "demonize" or "minimize" those relationships. The problem is that virtually every objection to gay activism is labeled "demonization" by...well people like you who have a weird emotional investment in this crusade for gay "rights".

No, it's not particularly funny because there is no "other guy" in this case. No one has a heterosexual agenda. There is quite obviously a gay agenda and you know there is. For example, I don't think you're naive or stupid enough to believe gay activists just happen to select Christian owned bakeries for their "wedding" cakes. Obviously, those bakeries are deliberately chosen. Why? Well, you know why.

The gay agenda is flying its flag in CA now: http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...80%99s-Capitol. No one flies a straight flag, there is none to be flown.