Anti-Klan Statute Nabs a New Generation of Violent Leftists

[Coyote]

Nice "objective" link there --- from the text once it finally worked:

>> Mathias quotes an Antifa member named Molly: "The irony of enforcing masking laws to prosecute leftists is just incredible. Those are anti-Klan statutes."

Yes, they are. But the Klan was the radical left wing of the Democratic Party. And this particular group of new-Nazis called themselves the National Socialist Movement, so ... more lefties. <<​

More history revisionism would be more accurate, since both the Klan and the Nazis were, and are, far-right fascists. The very name "Antifa(scist)" kind of locks down where each entity sits.

Yet another episode in desperate denialism. Doublethink has arrived.

These authoritarian twits calling themselves anti-fascism is the only real doublethink going on.

Actually I just quoted a stark example from the OP article. Try reading it.

trying to rebrand the Klan as radical left is truly pathetic.

so is trying to brand trump as a nazi or hitler.

now who did that?

Not me.

 

[Pogo]

Nice "objective" link there --- from the text once it finally worked:

>> Mathias quotes an Antifa member named Molly: "The irony of enforcing masking laws to prosecute leftists is just incredible. Those are anti-Klan statutes."

Yes, they are. But the Klan was the radical left wing of the Democratic Party. And this particular group of new-Nazis called themselves the National Socialist Movement, so ... more lefties. <<​

More history revisionism would be more accurate, since both the Klan and the Nazis were, and are, far-right fascists. The very name "Antifa(scist)" kind of locks down where each entity sits.

Yet another episode in desperate denialism. Doublethink has arrived.

These authoritarian twits calling themselves anti-fascism is the only real doublethink going on.

Actually I just quoted a stark example from the OP article. Try reading it.

trying to rebrand the Klan as radical left is truly pathetic.

so is trying to brand trump as a nazi or hitler.

now who did that?

Not me.

Nor I, and we're the only two in that exchange, which only leaves "Iceberg".
Now watch 'im melt down. Get it -- Iceberg melts down ya hah I kill me.

 

[iceberg]

Nice "objective" link there --- from the text once it finally worked:

>> Mathias quotes an Antifa member named Molly: "The irony of enforcing masking laws to prosecute leftists is just incredible. Those are anti-Klan statutes."

Yes, they are. But the Klan was the radical left wing of the Democratic Party. And this particular group of new-Nazis called themselves the National Socialist Movement, so ... more lefties. <<​

More history revisionism would be more accurate, since both the Klan and the Nazis were, and are, far-right fascists. The very name "Antifa(scist)" kind of locks down where each entity sits.

Yet another episode in desperate denialism. Doublethink has arrived.

These authoritarian twits calling themselves anti-fascism is the only real doublethink going on.

Actually I just quoted a stark example from the OP article. Try reading it.

trying to rebrand the Klan as radical left is truly pathetic.

so is trying to brand trump as a nazi or hitler.

now who did that?

Not me.

nope. you're usually fair in your views from what i've seen. but the left seems to want to rebrand things when they push so hard they finally discover it's not what they thought it was, or if they just want to demonize you so their hate is instantly justified.

ie - BAN AUTOMATIC WEAPONS - that was their mantra for many years before they finally realized that they already were and they were mad at the wrong things.
ie - Assault Rifle - the AR was never called one to begin with. but in their efforts to ban automatic weapons and continue to fight guns in general, the term was modified to fit their fears, not them learn the terminology and differences. since they were wrong, they will rebrand the term to fit their hate so they can, be right. even when wrong. how...clever if not highly annoying.
ie - GLOBAL WARMING is now climate change, or whatever else it is today so they can be wrong but right at the same time.
ie - Hitler, Nazi - and now both sides go nuts in name calling and here we are today.

 

[iceberg]

These authoritarian twits calling themselves anti-fascism is the only real doublethink going on.

Actually I just quoted a stark example from the OP article. Try reading it.

trying to rebrand the Klan as radical left is truly pathetic.

so is trying to brand trump as a nazi or hitler.

now who did that?

Not me.

Nor I, and we're the only two in that exchange, which only leaves "Iceberg".
Now watch 'im melt down. Get it -- Iceberg melts down ya hah I kill me.

so you don't like you either?

 

[Pogo]

These authoritarian twits calling themselves anti-fascism is the only real doublethink going on.

Actually I just quoted a stark example from the OP article. Try reading it.

trying to rebrand the Klan as radical left is truly pathetic.

so is trying to brand trump as a nazi or hitler.

now who did that?

Not me.

nope. you're usually fair in your views from what i've seen. but the left seems to want to rebrand things when they push so hard they finally discover it's not what they thought it was, or if they just want to demonize you so their hate is instantly justified.

ie - BAN AUTOMATIC WEAPONS - that was their mantra for many years before they finally realized that they already were and they were mad at the wrong things.
ie - Assault Rifle - the AR was never called one to begin with. but in their efforts to ban automatic weapons and continue to fight guns in general, the term was modified to fit their fears, not them learn the terminology and differences. since they were wrong, they will rebrand the term to fit their hate so they can, be right. even when wrong. how...clever if not highly annoying.
ie - GLOBAL WARMING is now climate change, or whatever else it is today so they can be wrong but right at the same time.
ie - Hitler, Nazi - and now both sides go nuts in name calling and here we are today.

Amazon must be selling strawmen now.

Hope they're using the post office.

 

[EGR one]

Members of the KKK were conservative rightwing white Christians. That is simply fact. The werent leftists and they certainly were not liberals. Stop trying to rewrite history. You are as bad as the Soviets were with the white wash.

They were mostly poorer rural whites, and dems. I'm pretty sure their economic policies, such as they were, were pretty much big government dem shit, like always.

I doubt it. Today they are staunch Republican, pro Trump and anti big government. Like they have always been.

You obviously struggled in history classes...or attended public schools

Nope. Perhaps you can show us proof that southern whites then were less conservative then now.

All southern whites were not racist. Racism in the northern states was just as prevalent, but did not have the political backing (democrats) that southern racism had. Conservatism is not racism. Simple little facts that loons like to ignore.

 

[EGR one]

Nice "objective" link there --- from the text once it finally worked:

>> Mathias quotes an Antifa member named Molly: "The irony of enforcing masking laws to prosecute leftists is just incredible. Those are anti-Klan statutes."

Yes, they are. But the Klan was the radical left wing of the Democratic Party. And this particular group of new-Nazis called themselves the National Socialist Movement, so ... more lefties. <<​

More history revisionism would be more accurate, since both the Klan and the Nazis were, and are, far-right fascists. The very name "Antifa(scist)" kind of locks down where each entity sits.

Yet another episode in desperate denialism. Doublethink has arrived.

These authoritarian twits calling themselves anti-fascism is the only real doublethink going on.

Actually I just quoted a stark example from the OP article. Try reading it.

trying to rebrand the Klan as radical left is truly pathetic.

What? Everyone knows that Southern Democrats have been lefties since the Revolution. Always trying to give rights and privileges to their black comrades. The 3/5ths compromise was really plan to give 3 out of every 5 Southern Black Citizens the right to vote. But those Northern Conservatives changed the wording in the last draft and didn't show it to he Liberal Slave owners till after the vote, (Ops did I say slaves? I mean the Southern Democrats who pretended to own people because they cared so much about them).

The 3/5ths compromise had nothing to do with voting. It only determined how many representatives each state was entitled to. The southern politicians wanted all slaves counted, and the northern politicians wanted no slaves counted. They settled on 3/5ths.

 

[Pogo]

Nice "objective" link there --- from the text once it finally worked:

>> Mathias quotes an Antifa member named Molly: "The irony of enforcing masking laws to prosecute leftists is just incredible. Those are anti-Klan statutes."

Yes, they are. But the Klan was the radical left wing of the Democratic Party. And this particular group of new-Nazis called themselves the National Socialist Movement, so ... more lefties. <<​

More history revisionism would be more accurate, since both the Klan and the Nazis were, and are, far-right fascists. The very name "Antifa(scist)" kind of locks down where each entity sits.

Yet another episode in desperate denialism. Doublethink has arrived.

These authoritarian twits calling themselves anti-fascism is the only real doublethink going on.

Actually I just quoted a stark example from the OP article. Try reading it.

trying to rebrand the Klan as radical left is truly pathetic.

What? Everyone knows that Southern Democrats have been lefties since the Revolution. Always trying to give rights and privileges to their black comrades. The 3/5ths compromise was really plan to give 3 out of every 5 Southern Black Citizens the right to vote. But those Northern Conservatives changed the wording in the last draft and didn't show it to he Liberal Slave owners till after the vote, (Ops did I say slaves? I mean the Southern Democrats who pretended to own people because they cared so much about them).

The 3/5ths compromise had nothing to do with voting. It only determined how many representatives each state was entitled to. The southern politicians wanted all slaves counted, and the northern politicians wanted no slaves counted. They settled on 3/5ths.

The post you just quoted is entirely satirical.

 

[Pogo]

Members of the KKK were conservative rightwing white Christians. That is simply fact. The werent leftists and they certainly were not liberals. Stop trying to rewrite history. You are as bad as the Soviets were with the white wash.

They were mostly poorer rural whites, and dems. I'm pretty sure their economic policies, such as they were, were pretty much big government dem shit, like always.

I doubt it. Today they are staunch Republican, pro Trump and anti big government. Like they have always been.

You obviously struggled in history classes...or attended public schools

Nope. Perhaps you can show us proof that southern whites then were less conservative then now.

All southern whites were not racist. Racism in the northern states was just as prevalent, but did not have the political backing (democrats) that southern racism had. Conservatism is not racism. Simple little facts that loons like to ignore.

Conservatism is not racism. This is true. But racism is by definition conservative.

As I read it the stream was about whether the South is/was 'conservative'. But further back upstream where the Klan came in, it's worth noting that the KKK was influential in Maine, Ohio and other parts of the midwest, especially Indiana where it's estimated one-third of the entire adult male population was Klan, and in the West as well.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nice "objective" link there --- from the text once it finally worked:

>> Mathias quotes an Antifa member named Molly: "The irony of enforcing masking laws to prosecute leftists is just incredible. Those are anti-Klan statutes."

Yes, they are. But the Klan was the radical left wing of the Democratic Party. And this particular group of new-Nazis called themselves the National Socialist Movement, so ... more lefties. <<​

More history revisionism would be more accurate, since both the Klan and the Nazis were, and are, far-right fascists. The very name "Antifa(scist)" kind of locks down where each entity sits.

Yet another episode in desperate denialism. Doublethink has arrived.

These authoritarian twits calling themselves anti-fascism is the only real doublethink going on.

Actually I just quoted a stark example from the OP article. Try reading it.

trying to rebrand the Klan as radical left is truly pathetic.

What? Everyone knows that Southern Democrats have been lefties since the Revolution. Always trying to give rights and privileges to their black comrades. The 3/5ths compromise was really plan to give 3 out of every 5 Southern Black Citizens the right to vote. But those Northern Conservatives changed the wording in the last draft and didn't show it to he Liberal Slave owners till after the vote, (Ops did I say slaves? I mean the Southern Democrats who pretended to own people because they cared so much about them).

The 3/5ths compromise had nothing to do with voting. It only determined how many representatives each state was entitled to. The southern politicians wanted all slaves counted, and the northern politicians wanted no slaves counted. They settled on 3/5ths.

No no I have it on good authority that them damn liberals were trying to give their "So Called Slaves" the right to vote all the way back then. Another unknown fact about the Southern Democrate is how the KKK was originally formedby liberal Democrats seeking to impose Socialism on the defeated South. Don't get me started on the true cause of the Civil War either. Suffice it to say it was all those Liberal Nazi Democrats from the South who caused it all. Everybody knows Democrats haven't changed, right?

 

[BlindBoo]

Members of the KKK were conservative rightwing white Christians. That is simply fact. The werent leftists and they certainly were not liberals. Stop trying to rewrite history. You are as bad as the Soviets were with the white wash.

They were mostly poorer rural whites, and dems. I'm pretty sure their economic policies, such as they were, were pretty much big government dem shit, like always.

I doubt it. Today they are staunch Republican, pro Trump and anti big government. Like they have always been.

You obviously struggled in history classes...or attended public schools

Nope. Perhaps you can show us proof that southern whites then were less conservative then now.

All southern whites were not racist. Racism in the northern states was just as prevalent, but did not have the political backing (democrats) that southern racism had. Conservatism is not racism. Simple little facts that loons like to ignore.

Most were. Which was true for the entire country.

 

[BlindBoo]

These authoritarian twits calling themselves anti-fascism is the only real doublethink going on.

Actually I just quoted a stark example from the OP article. Try reading it.

trying to rebrand the Klan as radical left is truly pathetic.

What? Everyone knows that Southern Democrats have been lefties since the Revolution. Always trying to give rights and privileges to their black comrades. The 3/5ths compromise was really plan to give 3 out of every 5 Southern Black Citizens the right to vote. But those Northern Conservatives changed the wording in the last draft and didn't show it to he Liberal Slave owners till after the vote, (Ops did I say slaves? I mean the Southern Democrats who pretended to own people because they cared so much about them).

The 3/5ths compromise had nothing to do with voting. It only determined how many representatives each state was entitled to. The southern politicians wanted all slaves counted, and the northern politicians wanted no slaves counted. They settled on 3/5ths.

The post you just quoted is entirely satirical.

ummmm, busted.........

 

[Correll]

Yeah they all magically switched parties in 1964....goddamn dope

Exactly

And you really believe anyone believes that shit....LOL. You people are deluded ....and ignorant

The monopoly that the Democratic Party held over most of the South first showed major signs of breaking apart in 1948, when many Southern Democrats, dissatisfied with the policies of desegregation enacted during the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman, created the States Rights Democratic Party, which nominated South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond for president and Mississippi Governor Fielding L. Wright for vice president. The “Dixiecrats” managed to win many Southern states, but collapsed as a party soon after the election, with effectively all members returning to the Democratic Party. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat from the Southern state of Texas, led many Southern Democrats to vote for Barry Goldwater at the national level. In the ensuing years, the increasing conservatism of the Republican Party compared to the liberalism of the Democratic Party (especially on social and cultural issues) led many more conservative white Democrats in the South to vote Republican. However, many continued to vote for Democrats at the state and local levels ,especially before 1994. After 2010, Republicans had gained a solid advantage over Democrats at all levels of politics in most Southern states.

Southern Democrats - Wikipedia

Jimmy Carter would like to have a word with you about that.

See that year label -- "1976"?

Have any idea what was going on just prior to that --- say, August of 1974?

Tell ya what, if you want to see the pattern check the next election. And the one after that, and the one after that.

Fun facts: A dozen years prior to your map, George Wallace, a Democrat from right smack dab in the middle of that blue area, offered to switch parties to be Barry Goldwater's running mate. That was the same year Strom Thurmond did switch parties --- which at the time in the white South was unthinkable -- after his hissyfit about the Civil Rights Act didn't pan out. Those were a couple of the biggest final cracks, prior to which both Thurmond and Wallace had bolted the Democrats to run against them in previous years.

Thurmond's previous hissyfit/bolt on the same complaint goes back to 1948, and was itself an echo of a previous Southern walkout all the way back in 1860, when not even Thurmond was born yet. His Dixiecrats actually kicked Truman the Democratic nominee off the ballot in part of the South and replaced his name.

And then when Thurmond's 1948 POTUS bid also didn't pan out, which was the reference that doomed Trent Lott (another Democrat who switched), he ran for Senate and the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot, and he had to run as a write-in, which he won.

Context, m'boy. Everything comes from somewhere. Southern conservatism simmered for well over a century, and occasionally bubbled over into political party schisms, eventual mass party migration, and at one point, civil war. The same conservatism that, when it lost that war, contrived the Klan (and at least two dozen similar vigilante groups) to continue that war socially after it was over militarily. The same conservatism that, to the same end, came up with Jim Crow and separate water fountains and the whole Lost Cause propaganda, the artifacts of which are only now coming under fire, and even now, after all of this, that same campaign continues to be waged with "leave that statue alone, you're erasing history" and mobs with Tiki torches crying "You will not replace us".

See the pattern. Political parties shift with the winds but geographical ideologies don't. Because they're rooted in culture, and those roots go far deeper. The Strom Thurmonds and Trent Lotts and Jesse Helmses can change parties all they like, but changing culture, that's a whole 'nother ball game.

The claim was that the Civil Rights act of 64 drove the racist South to the Republicans.


Jimmy Carter sweeping the South, shows that to be not true.


Jimmy Carter was no racist, and ran as a Dem, who took credit for the Civil Rights Act of 64.


The same South in your post, had no problem voting for a pro-civil rights dem in 1976.


That's my point, and it demolished yours.

 

[Political Junky]

This shows what I said.

 

[Pogo]

Exactly

And you really believe anyone believes that shit....LOL. You people are deluded ....and ignorant

The monopoly that the Democratic Party held over most of the South first showed major signs of breaking apart in 1948, when many Southern Democrats, dissatisfied with the policies of desegregation enacted during the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman, created the States Rights Democratic Party, which nominated South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond for president and Mississippi Governor Fielding L. Wright for vice president. The “Dixiecrats” managed to win many Southern states, but collapsed as a party soon after the election, with effectively all members returning to the Democratic Party. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat from the Southern state of Texas, led many Southern Democrats to vote for Barry Goldwater at the national level. In the ensuing years, the increasing conservatism of the Republican Party compared to the liberalism of the Democratic Party (especially on social and cultural issues) led many more conservative white Democrats in the South to vote Republican. However, many continued to vote for Democrats at the state and local levels ,especially before 1994. After 2010, Republicans had gained a solid advantage over Democrats at all levels of politics in most Southern states.

Southern Democrats - Wikipedia

Jimmy Carter would like to have a word with you about that.

See that year label -- "1976"?

Have any idea what was going on just prior to that --- say, August of 1974?

Tell ya what, if you want to see the pattern check the next election. And the one after that, and the one after that.

Fun facts: A dozen years prior to your map, George Wallace, a Democrat from right smack dab in the middle of that blue area, offered to switch parties to be Barry Goldwater's running mate. That was the same year Strom Thurmond did switch parties --- which at the time in the white South was unthinkable -- after his hissyfit about the Civil Rights Act didn't pan out. Those were a couple of the biggest final cracks, prior to which both Thurmond and Wallace had bolted the Democrats to run against them in previous years.

Thurmond's previous hissyfit/bolt on the same complaint goes back to 1948, and was itself an echo of a previous Southern walkout all the way back in 1860, when not even Thurmond was born yet. His Dixiecrats actually kicked Truman the Democratic nominee off the ballot in part of the South and replaced his name.

And then when Thurmond's 1948 POTUS bid also didn't pan out, which was the reference that doomed Trent Lott (another Democrat who switched), he ran for Senate and the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot, and he had to run as a write-in, which he won.

Context, m'boy. Everything comes from somewhere. Southern conservatism simmered for well over a century, and occasionally bubbled over into political party schisms, eventual mass party migration, and at one point, civil war. The same conservatism that, when it lost that war, contrived the Klan (and at least two dozen similar vigilante groups) to continue that war socially after it was over militarily. The same conservatism that, to the same end, came up with Jim Crow and separate water fountains and the whole Lost Cause propaganda, the artifacts of which are only now coming under fire, and even now, after all of this, that same campaign continues to be waged with "leave that statue alone, you're erasing history" and mobs with Tiki torches crying "You will not replace us".

See the pattern. Political parties shift with the winds but geographical ideologies don't. Because they're rooted in culture, and those roots go far deeper. The Strom Thurmonds and Trent Lotts and Jesse Helmses can change parties all they like, but changing culture, that's a whole 'nother ball game.

The claim was that the Civil Rights act of 64 drove the racist South to the Republicans.
Jimmy Carter sweeping the South, shows that to be not true.
Jimmy Carter was no racist, and ran as a Dem, who took credit for the Civil Rights Act of 64.
The same South in your post, had no problem voting for a pro-civil rights dem in 1976.
That's my point, and it demolished yours.

I'm afraid you just demolished your own. Jimmy Carter wasn't even in the federal government in 1964 let alone Congress, for starters so he certainly wouldn't have 'taken credit'. But the CRA '64 *was* the impetus for Strom Thurmond to bolt to the Republican Party, as already laid out.

Strom Thurmond was not "the South" of course, but he broke the ice that had made such a move unthinkable to the white "solid (Democrat) South" for 99 years, going where proverbially no white Democrat had gone before, after which the rest of "the South" followed. Thurmond had already been opposing the CRA when Kennedy brought it up in 1963 as well as railing against civil rights march organizers, opposing JFK's federal nominees and tangling with fellow Democrats such as Pastore (RI), and of course whining about the media being on the side of equality (and if that whining about the media sounds familiar --- it should).

The POTUS vote of 1964 (pictured in the PJ post above) was a perfect illustration of "the South" following Thurmond's lead. The same shift could be seen even more dramatically in the next election:

​

Half "the South" voted for George Wallace running against the two parties with a far-right California fringe party while the rest voted Republican. The only peripheral "Southern" Democratic state being Texas owing to LBJ's campaigning and being the sitting President and 'favorite son'. In other words half the South went to the party representing "the Right" while the other half went to an offshoot party representing "the extreme Right". This is exactly what LBJ was talking about when he mused, after the CRA passed but before his own 1964 election, that the Democratic Party had "lost the South for a generation". He was correct but clearly underestimated the time frame.

The next election it went entirely red.

You are correct that Jimmy Carter was and is no racist, but he was and is a Georgian. That brings us back to culture and the electoral benefit of having one in common. Carter had both the pull of that culture in the positive combined with his lackluster opponent having the burden of the national disgust for Watergate and Presidential interruption in his opponent's negative. Clinton had a similar benefit, minus the Watergate part, and even then failed to carry Alabama, Mississippi, both Carolinas and Virginia as well as Florida and Texas which still went Republican. But by then it was 1992 and politicians of "the South" were already running and winning office as Repubicans -- such as the aforementioned Trent Lott (who switched well before running for office) and Jesse Helms (who had been in politics longer and, like Thurmond, switched parties well after his political career was well established).

Thurmond, Lott, Helms et al never switched their ideologies. They merely switched political parties when they determined it would be expedient to their elections to do so. It's the same transition as, say, Richard Petty switching from Plymouth to Chevrolet when the former no longer provided what he needed to win races. The objective is always the same; only the vehicle to get there changes.

Hell, the sheriff in my town ran in his last election (and won) as a Republican. In the previous elections he ran (and won) as a Democrat. Same guy, same job. It's simply a matter of "which label will get me elected". Even the klown in my sigline identified for most of his life as a "Democrat", yet got his office as a "Republican". And oh yeah he carried "the South" too.

 

[MindWars]

Nice "objective" link there --- from the text once it finally worked:

>> Mathias quotes an Antifa member named Molly: "The irony of enforcing masking laws to prosecute leftists is just incredible. Those are anti-Klan statutes."

Yes, they are. But the Klan was the radical left wing of the Democratic Party. And this particular group of new-Nazis called themselves the National Socialist Movement, so ... more lefties. <<​

More history revisionism would be more accurate, since both the Klan and the Nazis were, and are, far-right fascists. The very name "Antifa(scist)" kind of locks down where each entity sits.

Yet another episode in desperate denialism. Doublethink has arrived.

These authoritarian twits calling themselves anti-fascism is the only real doublethink going on.

Actually I just quoted a stark example from the OP article. Try reading it.

trying to rebrand the Klan as radical left is truly pathetic.

Why? The Klan's roots are strictly democrat.

Of course that's more history you fools would love to erase

Parties and ideologies arent the same. The left owns the commies and marxists, you own the klan and fascists. I doubt they vote Dem today.

Apparently you never saw :




A part of history you Tards refuse to believe is true " they leave out the truth on historical facts" . as we go through schools colleges etc, it is a training manulal to keep you dumbed down.

Why the hell do you think we see terms like

LIBERAL ARTS
LIBERAL STUDIES
UNIV. OF LIBERAL idiots more like it.

 

[MindWars]

Where HISTORY is LEFT OUT and the leftist rejects of society have been taught to believe the total opposite

 

[Pogo]

These authoritarian twits calling themselves anti-fascism is the only real doublethink going on.

Actually I just quoted a stark example from the OP article. Try reading it.

trying to rebrand the Klan as radical left is truly pathetic.

Why? The Klan's roots are strictly democrat.

Of course that's more history you fools would love to erase

Parties and ideologies arent the same. The left owns the commies and marxists, you own the klan and fascists. I doubt they vote Dem today.

Apparently you never saw :




A part of history you Tards refuse to believe is true " they leave out the truth on historical facts" . as we go through schools colleges etc, it is a training manulal to keep you dumbed down.

Why the hell do you think we see terms like

LIBERAL ARTS
LIBERAL STUDIES
UNIV. OF LIBERAL idiots more like it.

This is not what the term "liberal" means in that context, Dumbass.

>> During the era of classical antiquity (when ancient Greece and ancient Rome intertwined creating the Greco-Roman world), liberal arts was considered essential education for a free individual active in civic life. At the time, this would have entailed being able to participate in public debate, defend oneself and serve in court and on juries, and perform military service. At this time, liberal arts covered only three subjects: grammar, rhetoric and logic, collectively known as the trivium. This was extended in medieval times to include four further subjects: arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy, named the quadrivium – so there were seven liberal arts subjects in the medieval liberal arts curriculum.

The trivium was considered preparatory work for the considerably more difficult quadrivium, with the quadrivium in turn being considered preparatory work for the more serious study of philosophy and theology. The aim of a liberal arts education was to produce a person who was virtuous and ethical, knowledgeable in many fields and highly articulate.

What is Liberal Arts Today?
So, in a modern context, what is liberal arts education? There are now many subjects that fall within the broad scope of the category; a typical liberal arts degree program is interdisciplinary, covering topics within the humanities, as well as social, natural and formal sciences. There are differences in the particular subjects included in liberal arts degree programs at different institutions. However, the liberal arts spectrum is generally accepted as covering the following fields:

• Humanities – includes art, literature, linguistics, philosophy, religion, ethics, modern foreign languages, music, theater, speech, classical languages (Latin/Greek) etc.
• Social sciences – includes history, psychology, law, sociology, politics, gender studies, anthropology, economics, geography, business informatics, etc.
• Natural sciences – includes astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics, botany, archaeology, zoology, geology, Earth sciences, etc.
• Formal sciences – includes mathematics, logic, statistics, etc. << -- What is Liberal Arts Education?

That's what you should have looked up before you put your foot in your own mouth. You're welcome. Cult of Ignorance would have us never play music or discuss politics or economics. Isn't that revealing. You may as well resign from the political forum in that case.

You'll notice that one of the liberal arts areas of study is linguistics. Maybe you should go for that, where you'd figure out that when I add a "liberal" amount of cumin to my chili it doesn't mean the cumin goes in there and makes sure All Spices are Created Equal.

 

[Coyote]

These authoritarian twits calling themselves anti-fascism is the only real doublethink going on.

Actually I just quoted a stark example from the OP article. Try reading it.

trying to rebrand the Klan as radical left is truly pathetic.

Why? The Klan's roots are strictly democrat.

Of course that's more history you fools would love to erase

Parties and ideologies arent the same. The left owns the commies and marxists, you own the klan and fascists. I doubt they vote Dem today.

Apparently you never saw :




A part of history you Tards refuse to believe is true " they leave out the truth on historical facts" . as we go through schools colleges etc, it is a training manulal to keep you dumbed down.

Why the hell do you think we see terms like

LIBERAL ARTS
LIBERAL STUDIES
UNIV. OF LIBERAL idiots more like it.

The "tard" bit get's old. I don't waste my time on your fictional crap. The Klan and the Fascists are about as leftwing as the Bolsheviks are rightwing. Own your own history.

Words are just that words. North Korea is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Do you think it's either "Democratic" or a "Republic"?

 

[MindWars]

Actually I just quoted a stark example from the OP article. Try reading it.

trying to rebrand the Klan as radical left is truly pathetic.

Why? The Klan's roots are strictly democrat.

Of course that's more history you fools would love to erase

Parties and ideologies arent the same. The left owns the commies and marxists, you own the klan and fascists. I doubt they vote Dem today.

Apparently you never saw :




A part of history you Tards refuse to believe is true " they leave out the truth on historical facts" . as we go through schools colleges etc, it is a training manulal to keep you dumbed down.

Why the hell do you think we see terms like

LIBERAL ARTS
LIBERAL STUDIES
UNIV. OF LIBERAL idiots more like it.

The "tard" bit get's old. I don't waste my time on your fictional crap. The Klan and the Fascists are about as leftwing as the Bolsheviks are rightwing. Own your own history.

Words are just that words. North Korea is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Do you think it's either "Democratic" or a "Republic"?

Bother watching it probably not.
ok I agree the Tard can get old, but having to feed real information gets old too when all of this is right in our faces yet gets denied as bull shit.