The Wide Awakes » Mandating Restrictions On Free Will

2/28/2006

Mandating Restrictions On Free Will - Liberal Utopia

The Utopia envisioned by liberal America would involve restricting free will to the point of non-existence. Just as long as you conform to their idea of Utopia, you would be permitted the freedom to live as you wish. However, if you should stray from their ideal vision of society, you will be subjected to their vision to punishment. Which at this point in our far from perfect world is legal entanglements at the hands of the ACLU.

For example:

University of Delaware President David P. Roselle has faced criticism for failing to enforce a zero-tolerance policy that would expel anyone who engages in offensive speech. Many universities, under pressure to respond to valid concerns, have tried to adopt policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

George Orwell in his novel 1984 not only warned against Big Brother, but what Big Brother stood for. Regulation of thought, speech, action, and intent is the true enemy.

Only liberals would come up with a policy to restrict free speech at a University. I find it comical that during the 1960s and early 1970s Universities were the scene of free speech. But now, unless you conform to mandated restrictions on that speech, you could find your way out of the education that you went there to obtain.

Now it is only restricted to so-called offensive speech, but what happens when that expands to political issues? Are they going to expel the entire membership of Young Republicans next? I see the day.

The only way Utopia is possible is to eliminate free-will. The communist model requires that everyone be the same when it is in human nature to improve ones lot in life. We all have a need to surpass what our restrictions are. It is called free-will. Passing laws or adopting regulations which restrict this growth does not achieve Utopia, it creates tyranny. The true goal of liberalism.

Everything that the common American liberal advocates today is the exact same arguments made in Russia in 1917. Making everyone the same looks good on paper, but is impossible to achieve just as long as people have the ability to change their own position. It is this free-will that creates the need for state, in the case of the former Soviet Union, to adopt restrictions on free-will. To monitor this, a KGB type of organization would have to be formed as to ensure that the people don’t start to meet in secret in order to discuss forbidden speech.

You can forget about opposing view points. The powers that be would eliminate the ability for organized opposition to their positions. Thus maintaining their tight grip on the people. Some Utopia huh.

Today’s liberals all advocate free speech, just as long as you agree with them. Should you take a position where the majority of liberal thinkers object, you are out of line and need to be hushed. Conservatives are the biggest threat to liberals, why? Because we are right.

If left to us, people would be free to speak. If left to us, people would be free to worship. If left to us, people would be free to live. Liberalism is the enemy of all free living, free loving Americans.

Said Gribbit @ 7:05 pm | Permalink

10 Comments »

They must deny free will. It leads to choice. Which leads to right and wrong. Which leads to personal responsibility. This is a road no self respecting Liberal would dare follow.

Comment by Glen — 2/28/2006 @ 8:31 pm

So on that campus I couldn’t say anything about that spic chick that looks more like a wop and hangs with those bible banging fags?

So much for free speech.

Comment by Kender — 3/1/2006 @ 9:52 am

I think you are confusing free speech with a lack of manners. Really I do. Some folks have it in there head that simply because they will not be arrested by the government and thrown in jail for voicing obsenities (not just profanity but vile hateful or rude speech designed to offend) that it is okay to do so. Well it isn’t. A generation of Americans have lost their manners and unfortunately they are in the process of raising yet another generation of mannerless children. And you have the nerve to defend your foul mouths by selling it as free speech. Yes Kender this is directed at you! We are all quite aware that you are proficient at profanity but I honestly do no tunderstand why you cannot express your disdain without resorting to ..well some of the words you resort to. Forgive me for the dangling preposition.

As for you Glen and Gribbit, you will persist in trying to define what a liberal is, how they think and what the world would look like in a society controlled by liberals. Silly boys. You don’t know what they think and you need only look at American history to see how society would be run since liberals have dominated politics in the country before. The truely laughable part is that if you asked a liberal to define society under a conservative fundamentalist they likely would respond that free will be would be restricted. No not likely. That is exactly what liberals think. Liberals like free will . It is one of the reasons why they are referred to as liberal.

Comment by Carol — 3/1/2006 @ 5:33 pm

Carol? Hi!!!

Does my invective “get your goat?”

Does my extremely colorful commentary rile your senses?

Does my “potty mouth” make you cringe when images spring, unbidden, to your mind?

Well good!!!

Perhaps you will excuse me for not giving a redheaded pigsnut about your delicate widdle feewings…..then again you may not. I don’t care if you do or not, in fact, I would rather you didn’t forgive me my language, and heartfully pray that it keeps you up at night, fretting that some turn of phrase may spring to your mind and jolt you from the edge of peaceful slumber.

Is that it Carol?

Do you, on the edge of conscienceness some nights, suddenly hear a voice whisper out “Assmuncher?”

Sometimes, when you are almost, but not quite asleep, does the phrase “sleep well asshat” pop into your head and cause you to say “DAMMIT KENDER!!!?”

If it hasn’t yet I bet it does now.

See? I just planted the idea on your head. Now that you have read this, you will, every so often, hear some words I have written just before you nod off, and, under your breath you will whisper;
“Fucking Kender” .

See if you don’t.

Comment by Kender — 3/2/2006 @ 1:29 am

LOL! You really are quite talented and evil. Profanity doesn’t offend me, I just don’t understand why you use it. Oh I understand why you used it here but not in general. Taking the Lord’s name in vain DOES offend me and Cartman already haunts my dreams so there is no room for you in there too.

Comment by Carol — 3/2/2006 @ 6:00 am

Umm Carol… In case you weren’t properly educated at the Communist Indoctrination Centers of America aka public high school and/or Universities, Liberal = Communist that’s why they preach it.

And as for your opinion… Well you know what they say about opinions and (forgive my language because I attempt to watch mine) assholes… well it certainly applies to yours.

Comment by Gribbit — 3/2/2006 @ 12:17 pm

It is official, I am talented and evil. Carol said so…thank you Carol. I can now run for public office.

Or is that run for a pubic orifice?

Comment by Kender — 3/2/2006 @ 2:28 pm

I don’t recall anyone ever associating liberalism with communism before and certainly I have never thought of myself as a communist. So I googled “liberal” and “liberalism” to see if I could find any connection between communism and liberalism and nope I couldn’t.

Now what I did find is the following definition and being a liberal let me add that this is dead-on:

liberal
1. Technically, someone who falls to the left in a political system, who believes in government programs (healthcare is a good example, as is welfare) and a larger scope of government, also favors monitoring of business and protection of constitutional rights. Someone who believes that the federal government should have more importance than state government,

2. Somehow, it has turned into an insult, like the word conservative. Usually used as such by people who have never taken a political science class and don’t know what the word means. Often used to describe “liberal media” despite the fact that most media outlets are owned by conservative corporations like ClearChannel, and the prevalence of conservative talk shows.

Not being quite as liberal as some liberals, let me add that personally I can only endorse a government program if that program is actually going to lend to self sufficiency or lower costs to all Americans as whole. In other words the program should lead to an actual costs savings or revenue increase to offset the costs.

Comment by Carol — 3/2/2006 @ 3:53 pm

Carol? You have found the EXACT PROBLEM that the members of the “Right” in general, and TWA specifically (as a general rule) have with the “left” in general and liberals in particular.

“liberal
1. Technically, someone who falls to the left in a political system, who believes in government programs (healthcare is a good example, as is welfare) and a larger scope of government, also favors monitoring of business and protection of constitutional rights. Someone who believes that the federal government should have more importance than state government,”

Let’s examine this is a very cursory manner, shall we? Sort of run it up the flag pole and see what kind of splash it makes eh?

“..to the left in a political system, who believes in government programs (healthcare is a good example, as is welfare) and a larger scope of government..”

Conservatives, True Conservatives, not that money spending bunch of wastrels we have in power at the moment, (and don’t take that as an endorsment of any kind for a democrat that might have been elected in the last elections, as I would rather have our hawkish moneypits running things right now than to hand the country over to a bunch of appeasing moneypits), believe in SMALLER GOVERNMENT and that programs such as healthcare is NOT a government job, and except in the poorest of cases should be up to the individual to procur at their expense, as free markets make for competition make for better products at a lower price.

“..also favors monitoring of business and protection of constitutional rights…federal government should have more importance than state government”

Again, True Conservatives KNOW that the Constitution was created to expressly keep most powers AWAY from the federal government, and powers delegated to the federal government are actually very few, and it is only through judicial activism, chicanery and outright theft of our rights that the federal government has come about so much power, and we would like to see it turned back around, while liberal think that the cure for all of societies ills lies with a bigger and more intrusive government.

It was a liberal that put a fascist law on the books that has forced wal-mart to pay out a certain amount of it’s profits as healthcare.

It was a liberal that brought about the welfare state.

It is liberals that fawn over the system of socialism in the EU and state that only by benig more like the EU will the US survive. In fact, it was a democrat that set us on the road to that very thing, with NAFTA being set into law by Clinton.

Socialism is the lighter, happier version of communism, and both systems are a blight on humanity and inherently evil, stealing away a man’s God Given Right of Free Will and Self Determination in favor of raising up the lazy and shiftless while bringing down the hard-working and honest man.

In short, socialism steals from one to give to another, and theft is theft, state sanctioned or not, and striving for an unnaturally level standard for all men denies the very nature of humanity as surely as genetic engineering.

One would think, as a side note here, that people that worship the enviroment with such rabid devotion that way the left does would have a better appreciation for the natural order of life.

Eh….just one more hypocritical stance to add to the seemingly never ending pile of hypocritical crap to which the left blindly, stupidly adheres.

Comment by Kender — 3/5/2006 @ 11:22 am

A little more reading may be in order, Carol.
‘The basic premise of the redistribution of wealth is that money should be more equally distributed so it benefits all members of society, and that the rich should be obliged to assist the poor.
And…
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needs.”-Karl Marx

Comment by Glen — 3/5/2006 @ 4:18 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jan				Mar »
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28