Another Proud Liberal...

[Doc1]

Once again, not liberalism, but progressivism.

westy, the term 'liberalism,' as used today, the colloquial, is synonymous with 'progressivism.'



. "Hillary Clinton says she doesn't really like the descriptive word "liberal," preferring to be characterized as a "progressive."
"You know, (liberal) is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom … that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual," she said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century." She continued: "I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive."
What Is a Progressive? by Joseph Farah


If you would like it used in its original meaning, you have to say 'classical liberalism.'

Oh bullshit. Progressivism was hanging around a century ago and is long gone. Your own Hillary Clinton quote makes that point, even if she wishes to revive it for herself, I'm afraid one person doesn't get to do that unilaterally. Wags like Westwall have their own modern meaning, even if you can't get them to say what it is ---- none of which make for a useful term if nobody agrees on what it means.

Liberalsim was here from the beginning, founded this country and fueled its Constitution.. Fascism is it polar opposite. Liberalism protects the rights of the populace, whence derives Power, and then gets the hell out of their way; fascism protects itself. whence derives its own Power, and gets the hell IN the way.

You can't just plug in any old term just because you like the way it rolls off the tongue. That is an insult to historical research.

"Classical Liberalism" does not exist as such. Liberalism is Liberalism, period. You don't get to pull a word inside out and turn it into its own opposite by appending the adjective "Classical" just because you can't be bothered to appreciate what the term actually means We actually do have a word for that process. It's called "Doublethink".


flacaltenn

If I understand you correctly, you are making the point that ONLY your interpretations of words matter, not the real, accepted translations?

 

[Meathead]

In modern colloquy 'Liberal' means the same as 'Progressive."

today "dementia" is also a synonym.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once again, not liberalism, but progressivism.

westy, the term 'liberalism,' as used today, the colloquial, is synonymous with 'progressivism.'



. "Hillary Clinton says she doesn't really like the descriptive word "liberal," preferring to be characterized as a "progressive."
"You know, (liberal) is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom … that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual," she said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century." She continued: "I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive."
What Is a Progressive? by Joseph Farah


If you would like it used in its original meaning, you have to say 'classical liberalism.'

Oh bullshit. Progressivism was hanging around a century ago and is long gone. Your own Hillary Clinton quote makes that point, even if she wishes to revive it for herself, I'm afraid one person doesn't get to do that unilaterally. Wags like Westwall have their own modern meaning, even if you can't get them to say what it is ---- none of which make for a useful term if nobody agrees on what it means.

Liberalsim was here from the beginning, founded this country and fueled its Constitution.. Fascism is it polar opposite. Liberalism protects the rights of the populace, whence derives Power, and then gets the hell out of their way; fascism protects itself. whence derives its own Power, and gets the hell IN the way.

You can't just plug in any old term just because you like the way it rolls off the tongue. That is an insult to historical research.

"Classical Liberalism" does not exist as such. Liberalism is Liberalism, period. You don't get to pull a word inside out and turn it into its own opposite by appending the adjective "Classical" just because you can't be bothered to appreciate what the term actually means We actually do have a word for that process. It's called "Doublethink".


flacaltenn

If I understand you correctly, you are making the point that ONLY your interpretations of words matter, not the real, accepted translations?

And spelling, as well.

 

[Doc1]

....Fascist.

Rather than eviscerating the Leftist du jour, Tucker Carlson seems to have altered his strategy to drawing out the Liberals, and letting them sink themselves.
Problem is, Liberals won't realize that they are looking into a mirror.



Last night, he had a screaming banshee.....who is actually paid by our system to indoctrinate the young......she is a middle school 'teacher'.....into the very same beliefs as the Nazis and Fascists she claims the other side to be.


Yvette Felarca led and/or organized the destructive protest at Berkeley that ended the first amendment rights of Milo Yiannopolous.
This savage....er, Liberal.....hinted that murder of those with an alternative view would be appropriate.
My take-away is that we are witnessing proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder.

See what you think.

Hey, thanks for posting!

I didn't mean to watch the whole clip (I mean, c'mon, ... it's Tucker fucking Carlson), but was mesmerized.

What a tough and articulate woman, and she put that asshole fascist on the ground.

And BTW, despite Tucker's best efforts, you're just lying about her hinting that murder of those with alternative views would be appropriate.

Good for her.

This is the way you should treat alt-right asshats ...



"Thumbs up, soldier!"

Oh golly another tough guy.

No, I'm no tough guy ...

... but, I surely am attracted to smart, tough, opinionated, and articulate women.

Why do they threaten you so?

Assuming you are indeed a "smart, tough, opinionated and articulate" woman, you don't intimidate or threaten me at all and neither does she. She however is none of those things, she is a run of the mill leftwing fascist bully. She would not want to assault me as she did the gentleman in the video.

 

[NightFox]

Once again, not liberalism, but progressivism.

westy, the term 'liberalism,' as used today, the colloquial, is synonymous with 'progressivism.'



. "Hillary Clinton says she doesn't really like the descriptive word "liberal," preferring to be characterized as a "progressive."
"You know, (liberal) is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom … that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual," she said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century." She continued: "I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive."
What Is a Progressive? by Joseph Farah


If you would like it used in its original meaning, you have to say 'classical liberalism.'

Liberals aren't fascists, progressives are. "Progressive" is just a change of name for "Communism" because you know, people got hip to "Communism".


She says "misogynistic" Milo's gay.

I can't wait until these tards run into some organized resistance.

In modern colloquy 'Liberal' means the same as 'Progressive."

The "progressives" changed their moniker to "liberal" after the common citizenry figured out what progressives really stood for, now that they've dirtied up the "liberal" moniker they're changing back to "progressives" again; regardless of what mask they choose to wear they're still the same authoritarian, ends justify the means, government worshipers they always were.

 

[Pogo]

Once again, not liberalism, but progressivism.

westy, the term 'liberalism,' as used today, the colloquial, is synonymous with 'progressivism.'



. "Hillary Clinton says she doesn't really like the descriptive word "liberal," preferring to be characterized as a "progressive."
"You know, (liberal) is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom … that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual," she said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century." She continued: "I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive."
What Is a Progressive? by Joseph Farah


If you would like it used in its original meaning, you have to say 'classical liberalism.'

Oh bullshit. Progressivism was hanging around a century ago and is long gone. Liberalsim was here from the beginning, founded this country and fueld its Constitution.. Fascism is it polar opposite. You can't just plug in any old term just because you like the way it rolls off the tongue. That is an insult to historical research.

"Liberalsim (sic) was here from the beginning, founded this country and fueld its Constitution."

A total lie.

1. The 'Greatest Lie"is the one that the modern Liberals tell. They claim that those called Liberals today are the liberals who founded this great nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Founders were 'classical liberals,' whose vision included . individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government. That's why they wrote out a detailed Constitution.

a. Communist John Dewey, the one who corrupted education in this country,convinced the Socialist Party to change its name to 'Liberal.'And it's values and doctrines formed those called Liberals today.


The benefit to them, of course, is that the uninformed attribute the greatness of the Founders, of America, to them.

Again, total fucking bullshit. You conveniently cut out the part of the post that sends your bullshit term "classical liberalism" down the toilet. Let's see again what you edited out as inconvenient. Roll tape.

>> "Classical Liberalism" does not exist as such. Liberalism is Liberalism, period. You don't get to pull a word inside out and turn it into its own opposite by appending the adjective "Classical" just because you can't be bothered to appreciate what the term actually means We actually do have a word for that process. It's called "Doublethink". <<​

Not bad. Roll another one, just like the other one....

>> Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law. << (Wiki)​

Liberalism then, wrested the power from the theretofore-extant channels of the Clergy and Aristocracy (first and second Estates) and sent it to the Third Estate, which we call We the People. That's history, Spandexia, and you can't change it.

What you're trying to do here is nakedly transparent and has been so since the post-WW2 Red Scare era when your demogogue god Joe McCarthy tried the same thing --- conflate "Liberalism" with "leftism" and then proceed to dehumanize and denigrate both. And you do that because State-worshiping authoritarians like you just can't stand the idea of a government that declines to butt into people's personal lives declaring who they can hang with, what they can say and what religion they can follow. Scary stuff. Too bad. That's the Constitution and it ain't going nowhere, like it or lump it.

You're playing with the language as a strategy to break that down. Ain't gonna happen on my watch, snookums. You may as well abandon these façile oxymoronic flailing attempts to be clever such as "liberal fasist". That's the equivalent of "pacifist warmonger". It's not fooling anybody but the OP.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The DNC was hacked,

....and according to your half brain.....It was aliens from Neptune that hacked the DNC??? (what an asshole)

Don't you dare curse my God's name, you liberal God hater! Your criminal candidate was Epstein's guest at his island, not Trump. Trump had Epstein banned from Mara de Largo because Epstein propositioned an underage girl at his estate. Trump is far above that type of wickedness but with a screen name like yours and the suspicious behavior you have demonstrated on this thread you should be put under a spot light and examined closely! Hope the FBI is watching this thread today! Maybe there will be a knock at YOUR DOOR to find out why you are so adamantly defending pedophiles!

I'm not a fucking liberal. I never voted for either Clinton. I think Hillary should be in prison. My screen name is Lew-dog. As in a nickname given to me a long time ago because my last name is Lewis. I'm not defending pedophiles idiot. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy that you want to accuse Clinton, Podesta, and now even Baldwin based on a relationship with the same person Trump had a relationship with... but you claim Trump is innocent. Of course Trump had him banned, he has how many other members there paying how much a year in membership fees to think about? Don't be stupid.

You're not only a liberal! You're a lying liberal! If ever there was a liberal on this board, you're it! If I didn't know better I'd think you were Jake Starkey's sock. Or maybe Rightwinger's but even they are not as rabid as you are. You're a real God hater. To the core. You need to repent before you find yourself in hell, Mr. Lewd og!

Simple question I ask all you idiots every time you accuse me of still being a Liberal after I tell you I'm not. WHY would I argue I'm not a liberal if I am one?

I'm agnostic... and I believe the Bible and other religious books were written by man, and not the true word of a higher power. I will never follow a religion that salvation is based on accepting a person as your savior, and not based on how you treat others and how you live your life. You do understand that all these pedophiles you hate so much, that as long as they accept Jesus as their savior they supposed to go to Heaven right? Fuck that. They deserve to be in hell for what they've done, they don't deserve salvation, but your religion gives them that opportunity. If anyone here is a defender of pedophiles it is your religion.

If other USMB members are telling you that you are a liberal it is because they see what I see. You defend the same wickedness other God haters (like Bodecea) defend here. You talk like them, act like them, and hate God like them. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck!

We're looking at what you are doing. You do what liberals do because you are a liberal. You can lie about it all if you wish but there is no denying it. As a man thinketh, so is he. You're not the first person to show up on USMB trying to run this game of "I'm not a liberal" ....and you won't be the last. Nevertheless, you're about as liberal as it gets.

You are one of the biggest bearers of false witness here. You apparently worship the god of liars.

Once again, not liberalism, but progressivism.

westy, the term 'liberalism,' as used today, the colloquial, is synonymous with 'progressivism.'



. "Hillary Clinton says she doesn't really like the descriptive word "liberal," preferring to be characterized as a "progressive."
"You know, (liberal) is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom … that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual," she said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century." She continued: "I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive."
What Is a Progressive? by Joseph Farah


If you would like it used in its original meaning, you have to say 'classical liberalism.'

Liberals aren't fascists, progressives are. "Progressive" is just a change of name for "Communism" because you know, people got hip to "Communism".


She says "misogynistic" Milo's gay.

I can't wait until these tards run into some organized resistance.

In modern colloquy 'Liberal' means the same as 'Progressive."

The "progressives" changed their moniker to "liberal" after the common citizenry figured out what progressives really stood for, now that they've dirtied up the "liberal" moniker they're changing back to "progressives" again; regardless of what mask they choose to wear they're still the same authoritarian, ends justify the means, government worshipers they always were.

I just call them Communists. It's what they are. Social Marxist Communists.

 

[BlindBoo]

Violence is inexcusable especially against someone like Milo who was invited to speak by a student organization. My favorite 1st amendment proponent was Frank Zappa. I think Frank would have been amused by Milo and might have even made song about him/her.

"Violence is inexcusable blah blah blah..."

You have supported the Left in nearly every one of your posts.....and violence is the language and default of the Left....

Georges Eugène Sorel (2 November 1847 in Cherbourg – 29 August 1922 in Boulogne-sur-Seine) was a French philosopher and theorist of revolutionary syndicalism. His notion of the power of myth in people's lives inspired Marxists and Fascists, it is, together with his defense of violence, the contribution for which he is most often remembered. Georges Sorel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Although he claimed himself to be a Marxian, Sorel held a deep suspicion for "armchair socialists", particularly those who mumbled about the inevitability of "progress". Instead, Sorel advocated massive general strikes and worker action -- not for the small concessions from employers those might bring, but rather as a way of continuously disrupting the capitalism industrial machine and thus eventually achieving worker control of means of production. In his most famous work (1908), Sorel emphasized the violent and irrational motivations of social and economic conduct (echoing Pareto in many ways).His identification of the need for a deliberately-conceived "myth" to sway crowds into concerted action was put to use by the Fascist and Communist movements of the 1920s and after. http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/sorel.htm

Feel free to link to any post where I advocated mob violence as a means to quell free speech, or resolve any political dispute.

Feel free to tell the truth.

Where did I say you "advocated mob violence as a means to quell free speech, or resolve any political dispute."

Now post what I actually said.



I use words with precision....try to do the same.

You posted "Violence is inexcusable blah blah blah..."

Your use of "blah blah blah" can only mean that I don't really believe what I said and that I actually approve of mob violence. At least that's the way I took it. Why did you mean it some other way?

 

[NightFox]

John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,

LOL, way to destroy your own argument, John Locke had nothing in common with those members of the American Left that have managed to hijack the "liberal" moniker, thus the need for the classical designation to distinguish the founders mode of liberalism from the modern authoritarians hiding behind the "liberal" mask to hide the fact that their answer to every problem is the use of government force to deprive the citizenry of liberty and property pursuant to getting their own way.

The founders had a fitting moniker for those who thought and behaved the way modern "liberals" do, they called them "royalists".

 

[Doc1]

Once again, not liberalism, but progressivism.

westy, the term 'liberalism,' as used today, the colloquial, is synonymous with 'progressivism.'



. "Hillary Clinton says she doesn't really like the descriptive word "liberal," preferring to be characterized as a "progressive."
"You know, (liberal) is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom … that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual," she said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century." She continued: "I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive."
What Is a Progressive? by Joseph Farah


If you would like it used in its original meaning, you have to say 'classical liberalism.'

Oh bullshit. Progressivism was hanging around a century ago and is long gone. Liberalsim was here from the beginning, founded this country and fueld its Constitution.. Fascism is it polar opposite. You can't just plug in any old term just because you like the way it rolls off the tongue. That is an insult to historical research.

"Liberalsim (sic) was here from the beginning, founded this country and fueld its Constitution."

A total lie.

1. The 'Greatest Lie"is the one that the modern Liberals tell. They claim that those called Liberals today are the liberals who founded this great nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Founders were 'classical liberals,' whose vision included . individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government. That's why they wrote out a detailed Constitution.

a. Communist John Dewey, the one who corrupted education in this country,convinced the Socialist Party to change its name to 'Liberal.'And it's values and doctrines formed those called Liberals today.


The benefit to them, of course, is that the uninformed attribute the greatness of the Founders, of America, to them.

Again, total fucking bullshit. You conveniently cut out the part of the post that sends your bullshit term "classical liberalism" down the toilet. Let's see again what you edited out as inconvenient. Roll tape.

>> "Classical Liberalism" does not exist as such. Liberalism is Liberalism, period. You don't get to pull a word inside out and turn it into its own opposite by appending the adjective "Classical" just because you can't be bothered to appreciate what the term actually means We actually do have a word for that process. It's called "Doublethink". <<​

Not bad. Roll another one, just like the other one....

>> Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law. << (Wiki)​

Liberalism then, wrested the power from the theretofore-extant channels of the Clergy and Aristocracy (first and second Estates) and sent it to the Third Estate, which we call We the People. That's history, Spandexia, and you can't change it.

What you're trying to do here is nakedly transparent and has been so since the post-WW2 Red Scare era when your demogogue god Joe McCarthy tried the same thing --- conflate "Liberalism" with "leftism" and then proceed to dehumanize and denigrate both. And you do that because State-worshiping authoritarians like you just can't stand the idea of a government that declines to butt into people's personal lives declaring who they can hang with, what they can say and what religion they can follow. Scary stuff. Too bad. That's the Constitution and it ain't going nowhere, like it or lump it.

You're playing with the language as a strategy to break that down. Ain't gonna happen on my watch, snookums. You may as well abandon these façile oxymoronic flailing attempts to be clever such as "liberal fasist". That's the equivalent of "pacifist warmonger". It's not fooling anybody but the OP.

Pure projection. Outside of your own basement and keyboard you do not get to push your definitions on anyone else. It is quite obvious that you have an extreme and highly unwarranted view of yourself. It is a very common tactic of you Lefty's to try and control the language so that you can control the narrative. It won't play here sunshine That tactic will only work in the shallow end of the pool.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once again, not liberalism, but progressivism.

westy, the term 'liberalism,' as used today, the colloquial, is synonymous with 'progressivism.'



. "Hillary Clinton says she doesn't really like the descriptive word "liberal," preferring to be characterized as a "progressive."
"You know, (liberal) is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom … that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual," she said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century." She continued: "I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive."
What Is a Progressive? by Joseph Farah


If you would like it used in its original meaning, you have to say 'classical liberalism.'

Oh bullshit. Progressivism was hanging around a century ago and is long gone. Liberalsim was here from the beginning, founded this country and fueld its Constitution.. Fascism is it polar opposite. You can't just plug in any old term just because you like the way it rolls off the tongue. That is an insult to historical research.

"Liberalsim (sic) was here from the beginning, founded this country and fueld its Constitution."

A total lie.

1. The 'Greatest Lie"is the one that the modern Liberals tell. They claim that those called Liberals today are the liberals who founded this great nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Founders were 'classical liberals,' whose vision included . individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government. That's why they wrote out a detailed Constitution.

a. Communist John Dewey, the one who corrupted education in this country,convinced the Socialist Party to change its name to 'Liberal.'And it's values and doctrines formed those called Liberals today.


The benefit to them, of course, is that the uninformed attribute the greatness of the Founders, of America, to them.

Again, total fucking bullshit. You conveniently cut out the part of the post that sends your bullshit term "classical liberalism" down the toilet. Let's see again what you edited out as inconvenient. Roll tape.

>> "Classical Liberalism" does not exist as such. Liberalism is Liberalism, period. You don't get to pull a word inside out and turn it into its own opposite by appending the adjective "Classical" just because you can't be bothered to appreciate what the term actually means We actually do have a word for that process. It's called "Doublethink". <<​

Not bad. Roll another one, just like the other one....

>> Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law. << (Wiki)​

Liberalism then, wrested the power from the theretofore-extant channels of the Clergy and Aristocracy (first and second Estates) and sent it to the Third Estate, which we call We the People. That's history, Spandexia, and you can't change it.

What you're trying to do here is nakedly transparent and has been so since the post-WW2 Red Scare era when your demogogue god Joe McCarthy tried the same thing --- conflate "Liberalism" with "leftism" and then proceed to dehumanize and denigrate both. And you do that because State-worshiping authoritarians like you just can't stand the idea of a government that declines to butt into people's personal lives declaring who they can hang with, what they can say and what religion they can follow. Scary stuff. Too bad. That's the Constitution and it ain't going nowhere, like it or lump it.

You're playing with the language as a strategy to break that down. Ain't gonna happen on my watch, snookums. You may as well abandon these façile oxymoronic flailing attempts to be clever such as "liberal fasist". That's the equivalent of "pacifist warmonger". It's not fooling anybody but the OP.

Gutter language is a well-known trait of one who recognizes that they've lost the argument. Defaulting to vulgarity proves that your thoughts are no more articulated on this subject than on any other.: a second-rater with a third grader's vocabulary.


Everything I post is accurate, correct and true.

You, of course, cannot claim the same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The DNC was hacked,

....and according to your half brain.....It was aliens from Neptune that hacked the DNC??? (what an asshole)

I'm not a fucking liberal. I never voted for either Clinton. I think Hillary should be in prison. My screen name is Lew-dog. As in a nickname given to me a long time ago because my last name is Lewis. I'm not defending pedophiles idiot. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy that you want to accuse Clinton, Podesta, and now even Baldwin based on a relationship with the same person Trump had a relationship with... but you claim Trump is innocent. Of course Trump had him banned, he has how many other members there paying how much a year in membership fees to think about? Don't be stupid.

You're not only a liberal! You're a lying liberal! If ever there was a liberal on this board, you're it! If I didn't know better I'd think you were Jake Starkey's sock. Or maybe Rightwinger's but even they are not as rabid as you are. You're a real God hater. To the core. You need to repent before you find yourself in hell, Mr. Lewd og!

Simple question I ask all you idiots every time you accuse me of still being a Liberal after I tell you I'm not. WHY would I argue I'm not a liberal if I am one?

I'm agnostic... and I believe the Bible and other religious books were written by man, and not the true word of a higher power. I will never follow a religion that salvation is based on accepting a person as your savior, and not based on how you treat others and how you live your life. You do understand that all these pedophiles you hate so much, that as long as they accept Jesus as their savior they supposed to go to Heaven right? Fuck that. They deserve to be in hell for what they've done, they don't deserve salvation, but your religion gives them that opportunity. If anyone here is a defender of pedophiles it is your religion.

If other USMB members are telling you that you are a liberal it is because they see what I see. You defend the same wickedness other God haters (like Bodecea) defend here. You talk like them, act like them, and hate God like them. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck!

We're looking at what you are doing. You do what liberals do because you are a liberal. You can lie about it all if you wish but there is no denying it. As a man thinketh, so is he. You're not the first person to show up on USMB trying to run this game of "I'm not a liberal" ....and you won't be the last. Nevertheless, you're about as liberal as it gets.

You are one of the biggest bearers of false witness here. You apparently worship the god of liars.

Once again, not liberalism, but progressivism.

westy, the term 'liberalism,' as used today, the colloquial, is synonymous with 'progressivism.'



. "Hillary Clinton says she doesn't really like the descriptive word "liberal," preferring to be characterized as a "progressive."
"You know, (liberal) is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom … that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual," she said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century." She continued: "I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive."
What Is a Progressive? by Joseph Farah


If you would like it used in its original meaning, you have to say 'classical liberalism.'

Liberals aren't fascists, progressives are. "Progressive" is just a change of name for "Communism" because you know, people got hip to "Communism".


She says "misogynistic" Milo's gay.

I can't wait until these tards run into some organized resistance.

In modern colloquy 'Liberal' means the same as 'Progressive."

The "progressives" changed their moniker to "liberal" after the common citizenry figured out what progressives really stood for, now that they've dirtied up the "liberal" moniker they're changing back to "progressives" again; regardless of what mask they choose to wear they're still the same authoritarian, ends justify the means, government worshipers they always were.

I just call them Communists. It's what they are. Social Marxist Communists.

True.

There is not a whit of difference between the goals of Liberals, Socialists, Communists, Nazis, Progressives or Fascists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Violence is inexcusable especially against someone like Milo who was invited to speak by a student organization. My favorite 1st amendment proponent was Frank Zappa. I think Frank would have been amused by Milo and might have even made song about him/her.

"Violence is inexcusable blah blah blah..."

You have supported the Left in nearly every one of your posts.....and violence is the language and default of the Left....

Georges Eugène Sorel (2 November 1847 in Cherbourg – 29 August 1922 in Boulogne-sur-Seine) was a French philosopher and theorist of revolutionary syndicalism. His notion of the power of myth in people's lives inspired Marxists and Fascists, it is, together with his defense of violence, the contribution for which he is most often remembered. Georges Sorel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Although he claimed himself to be a Marxian, Sorel held a deep suspicion for "armchair socialists", particularly those who mumbled about the inevitability of "progress". Instead, Sorel advocated massive general strikes and worker action -- not for the small concessions from employers those might bring, but rather as a way of continuously disrupting the capitalism industrial machine and thus eventually achieving worker control of means of production. In his most famous work (1908), Sorel emphasized the violent and irrational motivations of social and economic conduct (echoing Pareto in many ways).His identification of the need for a deliberately-conceived "myth" to sway crowds into concerted action was put to use by the Fascist and Communist movements of the 1920s and after. http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/sorel.htm

Feel free to link to any post where I advocated mob violence as a means to quell free speech, or resolve any political dispute.

Feel free to tell the truth.

Where did I say you "advocated mob violence as a means to quell free speech, or resolve any political dispute."

Now post what I actually said.



I use words with precision....try to do the same.

You posted "Violence is inexcusable blah blah blah..."

Your use of "blah blah blah" can only mean that I don't really believe what I said and that I actually approve of mob violence. At least that's the way I took it. Why did you mean it some other way?

Soooo....you were lying when you claimed I said you "advocated mob violence as a means to quell free speech, or resolve any political dispute."


Excellent.

Don't do it again.

 

[Pogo]

Once again, not liberalism, but progressivism.

westy, the term 'liberalism,' as used today, the colloquial, is synonymous with 'progressivism.'



. "Hillary Clinton says she doesn't really like the descriptive word "liberal," preferring to be characterized as a "progressive."
"You know, (liberal) is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom … that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual," she said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century." She continued: "I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive."
What Is a Progressive? by Joseph Farah


If you would like it used in its original meaning, you have to say 'classical liberalism.'

Oh bullshit. Progressivism was hanging around a century ago and is long gone. Liberalsim was here from the beginning, founded this country and fueld its Constitution.. Fascism is it polar opposite. You can't just plug in any old term just because you like the way it rolls off the tongue. That is an insult to historical research.

"Liberalsim (sic) was here from the beginning, founded this country and fueld its Constitution."

A total lie.

1. The 'Greatest Lie"is the one that the modern Liberals tell. They claim that those called Liberals today are the liberals who founded this great nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Founders were 'classical liberals,' whose vision included . individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government. That's why they wrote out a detailed Constitution.

a. Communist John Dewey, the one who corrupted education in this country,convinced the Socialist Party to change its name to 'Liberal.'And it's values and doctrines formed those called Liberals today.


The benefit to them, of course, is that the uninformed attribute the greatness of the Founders, of America, to them.

Again, total fucking bullshit. You conveniently cut out the part of the post that sends your bullshit term "classical liberalism" down the toilet. Let's see again what you edited out as inconvenient. Roll tape.

>> "Classical Liberalism" does not exist as such. Liberalism is Liberalism, period. You don't get to pull a word inside out and turn it into its own opposite by appending the adjective "Classical" just because you can't be bothered to appreciate what the term actually means We actually do have a word for that process. It's called "Doublethink". <<​

Not bad. Roll another one, just like the other one....

>> Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law. << (Wiki)​

Liberalism then, wrested the power from the theretofore-extant channels of the Clergy and Aristocracy (first and second Estates) and sent it to the Third Estate, which we call We the People. That's history, Spandexia, and you can't change it.

What you're trying to do here is nakedly transparent and has been so since the post-WW2 Red Scare era when your demogogue god Joe McCarthy tried the same thing --- conflate "Liberalism" with "leftism" and then proceed to dehumanize and denigrate both. And you do that because State-worshiping authoritarians like you just can't stand the idea of a government that declines to butt into people's personal lives declaring who they can hang with, what they can say and what religion they can follow. Scary stuff. Too bad. That's the Constitution and it ain't going nowhere, like it or lump it.

You're playing with the language as a strategy to break that down. Ain't gonna happen on my watch, snookums. You may as well abandon these façile oxymoronic flailing attempts to be clever such as "liberal fasist". That's the equivalent of "pacifist warmonger". It's not fooling anybody but the OP.

Pure projection. Outside of your own basement and keyboard you do not get to push your definitions on anyone else. It is quite obvious that you have an extreme and highly unwarranted view of yourself. It is a very common tactic of you Lefty's to try and control the language so that you can control the narrative. It won't play here sunshine That tactic will only work in the shallow end of the pool.

Revealing "projection" indeed since absolutely NOTHING I posted was about "myself". Is our widdle butt hurt because we happened upon some new info we weren't ready for? Guess what Gummo --- it's a discussion board. That's what happens.

Here, try this on for size, asshat.

>> One of the major problems in American political consciousness today comes from a misrepresentation of the political spectrum. This is partly the result of a deliberate effort to put all of America's enemies (fascists and communists) into the same basket after World War II, and a deliberate effort by the American "Right" to classify everything that they oppose as "Leftist". After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics.

... One of the first things that has to be done in order to properly understand the full spectrum of political ideas is to correct the popular misconception of the term "liberal" in America.

Liberal, in the classical sense of the word, simply means a "hands off", or laissez-faire, policy. The United States is classically seen as an example of "liberal democracy," as George Washington stated in 1790:

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.​

Of course, these high ideals didn't exactly reflect the social reality in America at that time, where slavery was still widespread and bigotry of all kinds was still part of the social consciousness, but nevertheless the American government created by the founders represented a great advance for liberalism.

America was founded on the idea that government was to play a minimal role in the affairs of society and the economy - that the job of the government was not to provide direction for society or the economy, but simply to maintain a "free environment" were the public could conduct themselves as they so chose, as long as they didn't "infringe" on the "rights" of others ("others" at that time meaning white male property owners).

... the misuse of the term Liberal is itself part of the problem with how Americans view the political spectrum, so this needs to addressed and corrected.

What is the popular concept of "Liberal" in America today?

The current popular concept of "Liberal" is often "Leftist" and is associated with "big government," economic regulation, progressive taxation, and progressive social policy, such as support for gay rights, unlimited free speech and Affirmative Action.

With the exception of gay rights and free speech, none of these other issues are actually "Liberal" policies in the classical sense. Furthermore, liberalism, in either the classical sense or the current common usage, is not "Leftist" in a full political spectrum.

Liberalism views government like a referee, whose job is to maintain a level and equal playing field for individuals, ideas, businesses and institutions. Government is not to take sides or support any given view or organization. Conservatives, socialists, and others, i.e. the "Left" and the "Right", seek to use government to promote certain agendas, viewpoints, institutions, and interests.

This is critical to understand if one is to understand the political landscape of the 20th century. << (emphases added)​

--- more, far more, at the link, which somehow astoundingly manages to get through 30 pages without ever mentioning "me".

Again ---- this is a 70 year old McCarthyist bullshit tactic, the goal of which is conflation of terms leading to demonization of "Liberalism", our founding fuel, leading to the Authoritarian/fascist ein-Partei State that useful idiots like the OP really want. A State where they get to direct everything and anybody who doesn't like it can STFU. Again --- ain't gonna happen as long as We the People remain standing.

 

[BlindBoo]

Violence is inexcusable especially against someone like Milo who was invited to speak by a student organization. My favorite 1st amendment proponent was Frank Zappa. I think Frank would have been amused by Milo and might have even made song about him/her.

"Violence is inexcusable blah blah blah..."

You have supported the Left in nearly every one of your posts.....and violence is the language and default of the Left....

Georges Eugène Sorel (2 November 1847 in Cherbourg – 29 August 1922 in Boulogne-sur-Seine) was a French philosopher and theorist of revolutionary syndicalism. His notion of the power of myth in people's lives inspired Marxists and Fascists, it is, together with his defense of violence, the contribution for which he is most often remembered. Georges Sorel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Although he claimed himself to be a Marxian, Sorel held a deep suspicion for "armchair socialists", particularly those who mumbled about the inevitability of "progress". Instead, Sorel advocated massive general strikes and worker action -- not for the small concessions from employers those might bring, but rather as a way of continuously disrupting the capitalism industrial machine and thus eventually achieving worker control of means of production. In his most famous work (1908), Sorel emphasized the violent and irrational motivations of social and economic conduct (echoing Pareto in many ways).His identification of the need for a deliberately-conceived "myth" to sway crowds into concerted action was put to use by the Fascist and Communist movements of the 1920s and after. http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/sorel.htm

Feel free to link to any post where I advocated mob violence as a means to quell free speech, or resolve any political dispute.

Feel free to tell the truth.

Where did I say you "advocated mob violence as a means to quell free speech, or resolve any political dispute."

Now post what I actually said.



I use words with precision....try to do the same.

You posted "Violence is inexcusable blah blah blah..."

Your use of "blah blah blah" can only mean that I don't really believe what I said and that I actually approve of mob violence. At least that's the way I took it. Why did you mean it some other way?

Soooo....you were lying when you claimed I said you "advocated mob violence as a means to quell free speech, or resolve any political dispute."


Excellent.

Don't do it again.

No not at all. Your ambiguous "blah blah blah" says it all, oh queen of precision. Then you followed that with:

You have supported the Left in nearly every one of your posts.....and violence is the language and default of the Left...

Furthermore I never claimed that you said that. Claiming that I did is an out right lie.

But that's your MO isn't it?

 

[Doc1]

westy, the term 'liberalism,' as used today, the colloquial, is synonymous with 'progressivism.'



. "Hillary Clinton says she doesn't really like the descriptive word "liberal," preferring to be characterized as a "progressive."
"You know, (liberal) is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom … that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual," she said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century." She continued: "I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive."
What Is a Progressive? by Joseph Farah


If you would like it used in its original meaning, you have to say 'classical liberalism.'

Oh bullshit. Progressivism was hanging around a century ago and is long gone. Liberalsim was here from the beginning, founded this country and fueld its Constitution.. Fascism is it polar opposite. You can't just plug in any old term just because you like the way it rolls off the tongue. That is an insult to historical research.

"Liberalsim (sic) was here from the beginning, founded this country and fueld its Constitution."

A total lie.

1. The 'Greatest Lie"is the one that the modern Liberals tell. They claim that those called Liberals today are the liberals who founded this great nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Founders were 'classical liberals,' whose vision included . individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government. That's why they wrote out a detailed Constitution.

a. Communist John Dewey, the one who corrupted education in this country,convinced the Socialist Party to change its name to 'Liberal.'And it's values and doctrines formed those called Liberals today.


The benefit to them, of course, is that the uninformed attribute the greatness of the Founders, of America, to them.

Again, total fucking bullshit. You conveniently cut out the part of the post that sends your bullshit term "classical liberalism" down the toilet. Let's see again what you edited out as inconvenient. Roll tape.

>> "Classical Liberalism" does not exist as such. Liberalism is Liberalism, period. You don't get to pull a word inside out and turn it into its own opposite by appending the adjective "Classical" just because you can't be bothered to appreciate what the term actually means We actually do have a word for that process. It's called "Doublethink". <<​

Not bad. Roll another one, just like the other one....

>> Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law. << (Wiki)​

Liberalism then, wrested the power from the theretofore-extant channels of the Clergy and Aristocracy (first and second Estates) and sent it to the Third Estate, which we call We the People. That's history, Spandexia, and you can't change it.

What you're trying to do here is nakedly transparent and has been so since the post-WW2 Red Scare era when your demogogue god Joe McCarthy tried the same thing --- conflate "Liberalism" with "leftism" and then proceed to dehumanize and denigrate both. And you do that because State-worshiping authoritarians like you just can't stand the idea of a government that declines to butt into people's personal lives declaring who they can hang with, what they can say and what religion they can follow. Scary stuff. Too bad. That's the Constitution and it ain't going nowhere, like it or lump it.

You're playing with the language as a strategy to break that down. Ain't gonna happen on my watch, snookums. You may as well abandon these façile oxymoronic flailing attempts to be clever such as "liberal fasist". That's the equivalent of "pacifist warmonger". It's not fooling anybody but the OP.

Pure projection. Outside of your own basement and keyboard you do not get to push your definitions on anyone else. It is quite obvious that you have an extreme and highly unwarranted view of yourself. It is a very common tactic of you Lefty's to try and control the language so that you can control the narrative. It won't play here sunshine That tactic will only work in the shallow end of the pool.

Revealing "projection" indeed since absolutely NOTHING I posted was about "myself". Is our widdle butt hurt because we happened upon some new info we weren't ready for? Guess what Gummo --- it's a discussion board. That's what happens.

Here, try this on for size, asshat.

>> One of the major problems in American political consciousness today comes from a misrepresentation of the political spectrum. This is partly the result of a deliberate effort to put all of America's enemies (fascists and communists) into the same basket after World War II, and a deliberate effort by the American "Right" to classify everything that they oppose as "Leftist". After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics.

... One of the first things that has to be done in order to properly understand the full spectrum of political ideas is to correct the popular misconception of the term "liberal" in America.

Liberal, in the classical sense of the word, simply means a "hands off", or laissez-faire, policy. The United States is classically seen as an example of "liberal democracy," as George Washington stated in 1790:

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.​

Of course, these high ideals didn't exactly reflect the social reality in America at that time, where slavery was still widespread and bigotry of all kinds was still part of the social consciousness, but nevertheless the American government created by the founders represented a great advance for liberalism.

America was founded on the idea that government was to play a minimal role in the affairs of society and the economy - that the job of the government was not to provide direction for society or the economy, but simply to maintain a "free environment" were the public could conduct themselves as they so chose, as long as they didn't "infringe" on the "rights" of others ("others" at that time meaning white male property owners).

... the misuse of the term Liberal is itself part of the problem with how Americans view the political spectrum, so this needs to addressed and corrected.

What is the popular concept of "Liberal" in America today?

The current popular concept of "Liberal" is often "Leftist" and is associated with "big government," economic regulation, progressive taxation, and progressive social policy, such as support for gay rights, unlimited free speech and Affirmative Action.

With the exception of gay rights and free speech, none of these other issues are actually "Liberal" policies in the classical sense. Furthermore, liberalism, in either the classical sense or the current common usage, is not "Leftist" in a full political spectrum.

Liberalism views government like a referee, whose job is to maintain a level and equal playing field for individuals, ideas, businesses and institutions. Government is not to take sides or support any given view or organization. Conservatives, socialists, and others, i.e. the "Left" and the "Right", seek to use government to promote certain agendas, viewpoints, institutions, and interests.

This is critical to understand if one is to understand the political landscape of the 20th century. << (emphases added)​

--- more, far more, at the link, which somehow astoundingly manages to get through 30 pages without ever mentioning "me".

Again ---- this is a 70 year old McCarthyist bullshit tactic, the goal of which is conflation of terms leading to demonization of "Liberalism", our founding fuel, leading to the Authoritarian/fascist ein-Partei State that useful idiots like the OP really want. A State where they get to direct everything and anybody who doesn't like it can STFU. Again --- ain't gonna happen as long as We the People remain standing.

You prove my point sista girl. You've chosen the source you want to believe because it fits your "paradigm". To put it more plainly, you arrived at your conclusion and simply selected a source that "proves" you are right. Classic tactic of the weak. I always find it ironic that you little folk always take on the very characteristics of the things you accuse everyone else of, another tactic of the Left. We've established this, you can cut and paste, you can call names, and you can feign superiority. Once again sista, the shallow end is down the hall.

 

[Mac1958]

This lady is a good example of the Regressive Left: Judge, jury and executioner.

She'll decide what is fascism, she'll decide when it is being perpetrated, and she'll decide on the punishment.

The concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression are up to her personal interpretation only.

This is why freedom of expression is so critical: It exposes people like this for what they are, loud and clear.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This lady is a good example of the Regressive Left: Judge, jury and executioner.

She'll decide what is fascism, she'll decide when it is being perpetrated, and she'll decide on the punishment.

The concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression are up to her personal interpretation only.

This is why freedom of expression is so critical: It exposes people like this for what they are, loud and clear.
.

"This lady is a good example of the Regressive Left: Judge, jury and executioner."
I hope you're not suggesting that she represents a mere minority of Liberals.....
She operates without fear because she represents the majority of Democrats/Liberals...if not the means, at least the ends.



I hope you haven't forgotten this:

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Violence is inexcusable blah blah blah..."

You have supported the Left in nearly every one of your posts.....and violence is the language and default of the Left....

Georges Eugène Sorel (2 November 1847 in Cherbourg – 29 August 1922 in Boulogne-sur-Seine) was a French philosopher and theorist of revolutionary syndicalism. His notion of the power of myth in people's lives inspired Marxists and Fascists, it is, together with his defense of violence, the contribution for which he is most often remembered. Georges Sorel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Although he claimed himself to be a Marxian, Sorel held a deep suspicion for "armchair socialists", particularly those who mumbled about the inevitability of "progress". Instead, Sorel advocated massive general strikes and worker action -- not for the small concessions from employers those might bring, but rather as a way of continuously disrupting the capitalism industrial machine and thus eventually achieving worker control of means of production. In his most famous work (1908), Sorel emphasized the violent and irrational motivations of social and economic conduct (echoing Pareto in many ways).His identification of the need for a deliberately-conceived "myth" to sway crowds into concerted action was put to use by the Fascist and Communist movements of the 1920s and after. http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/sorel.htm

Feel free to link to any post where I advocated mob violence as a means to quell free speech, or resolve any political dispute.

Feel free to tell the truth.

Where did I say you "advocated mob violence as a means to quell free speech, or resolve any political dispute."

Now post what I actually said.



I use words with precision....try to do the same.

You posted "Violence is inexcusable blah blah blah..."

Your use of "blah blah blah" can only mean that I don't really believe what I said and that I actually approve of mob violence. At least that's the way I took it. Why did you mean it some other way?

Soooo....you were lying when you claimed I said you "advocated mob violence as a means to quell free speech, or resolve any political dispute."


Excellent.

Don't do it again.

No not at all. Your ambiguous "blah blah blah" says it all, oh queen of precision. Then you followed that with:

You have supported the Left in nearly every one of your posts.....and violence is the language and default of the Left...

Furthermore I never claimed that you said that. Claiming that I did is an out right lie.

But that's your MO isn't it?

You need be slapped around again???

No problem....in fact, my pleasure.


I don't want your spin, your attempt to 'interpret' what I said.....just provide what I said, and it will prove you to be a lying low-life, or, typical Liberal.


You were lying when you claimed I said you "advocated mob violence as a means to quell free speech, or resolve any political dispute."

I always say what I mean, and mean what I say.
You don't, because truth is less important to you.

You are simply one more boilerplate Liberal, following Georges Sorel...
Georges Eugène Sorel (2 November 1847 in Cherbourg – 29 August 1922 in Boulogne-sur-Seine) was a French philosopher and theorist of revolutionary syndicalism. His notion of the power of myth in people's lives inspired Marxists and Fascists, it is, together with his defense of violence, the contribution for which he is most often remembered. Georges Sorel - Wikipedia



For Sorel, and for you, your statements need not be true to be of value.
In this case, you've attempted to shield yourself from the contumely you deserve by advancing a lie.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Wow. She is a really, really, angry person. The hate is seething just below the surface with her. She's going to explode soon, and it will be ugly when she does.

Why didn't that guy in the clip shove that pole down her throat ?