Defining "Liberalism"

[Liberal]

As usual [MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION]

You fucking cop & paste shit all the time.

Amazon review has your first paragraph verbatim. Get an original thought you goon.

All of the rest of your post is just copy & paste regurgitation. You act like you are some cultured "rare animal" conservative, but you are unable to create your own thoughts.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.





A detailed exposition of that theme can be found in James Piereson of the Manhattan Institute's 2007 book “Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism”

He showed how that moment, the assassination, gave Liberals the opportunity to turn on communism, ...or on America.
Their choice is clear today.


1. "... (concerning Lee Harvey Oswald) “He didn’t even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It’s — it had to be some silly little Communist.”— Jacqueline Kennedy

2. She thought it robbed his (JFK's) death of any meaning. But a meaning would be quickly manufactured to serve a new politics. First, however, an inconvenient fact — Oswald — had to be expunged from the story.

a. .... 24 months after the assassination, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the Kennedys’ kept historian, published a thousand-page history of the thousand-day presidency without mentioning the assassin.






3. ... The transformation of a murder by a marginal man into a killing by a sick culture began instantly — before Kennedy was buried. The afternoon of the assassination, Chief Justice Earl Warren ascribed Kennedy’s “martyrdom” to “the hatred and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by bigots.”

a. The next day, James Reston, the New York Times luminary, wrote in a front-page story that Kennedy was a victim of a “streak of violence in the American character,” noting especially “the violence of the extremists on the right.”

[Of course, Liberals are still running with that obfuscation today, with respect to the Tea Party]

b. Never mind that adjacent to Reston’s article was a Times report on Oswald’s Communist convictions and associations. A Soviet spokesman, too, assigned “moral responsibility” for Kennedy’s death to “Barry Goldwater and other extremists on the right.”

[Liberals and Soviet spokesmen....on the same page]






4. .... a Times editorial, “Spiral of Hate,” identified Kennedy’s killer as a “spirit”: The Times deplored “the shame all America must bear for the spirit of madness and hate that struck down” Kennedy. The editorialists were, presumably, immune to this spirit. The new liberalism-as-paternalism would be about correcting other people’s defects..... Kennedy was killed by America’s social climate, whose sickness required “punitive liberalism.”

[ "... Obama Is Making Shutdown As Painful As Possible" http://news92fm.com/390223/congressman-olson-says-obama-is-making-shutdown-as-painful-as-possible/]






5. The bullets of Nov. 22, 1963, altered the nation’s trajectory less by killing a president than by giving birth to a destructive narrative about America.....

6. Punitive liberalism preached the necessity of national repentance for a history of crimes and misdeeds that had produced a present so poisonous that it murdered a president.... Liberalism would become the doctrine of grievance groups owed redress for cumulative inherited injuries inflicted by the nation’s tawdry history, toxic present and ominous future.

[ Obama: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."]

7. As Piereson writes, the retreat of liberalism from a doctrine of American affirmation left a void that would be filled by Ronald Reagan 17 years after the assassination." George F. Will: When liberals became scolds - The Washington Post





Whitaker Chamber's point proven.

Liberalism continued down the path blazed by Franklin Roosevelt....seeing nothing worthy of confronting nor combating in communism.



Just as Oswald was erased as the central element of the assassination, so, too, was the glorious history of this great nation.
Instead, it turned the battle against a non-existent enemy of freedom and liberty, ...America.


Liberalism: seeking evil in America the way pigs seek truffles.

You're just a sucker for the game the Heirheads are playing. JFK was a preppy just like Bush. In a free country, neither of these spoiled-rotten preppies would have amounted to anything. Both you and the Camelot jockeys have the same slavish-peasant attitude towards the glitter of the gilded. Real Americans never would have elected anyone from the class of unearned positions.

It even happened in the Teamsters. What kind of drooling idiots would expect anything from Jimmy Hoffa, Junior? Just today I read that up in Canada, the son of a former Prime Minister (Trudeau) is the leader of a major party. What are the odds of that happening in fair competition? Practically zero, which is what the modern world will become if we continue to allow this cancer that has destroyed all civilizations.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have long argued the point that the modern American liberal aka leftist aka progressive aka statist aka political class is:

1. Incapable of focusing on a concept or principle.

2. Will instead focus on the messenger or find something or somebody else to criticize, accuse, ridicule, or demonize.

3. Cannot defend their own values or beliefs with anything acceptable even to themselves, and therefore must make sure the discussion is derailed or shifted to something else.

Nothing I have seen in this thread shakes my faith in my opinion about that whatsoever.

You would think there would be at least one thinking liberal out of the whole group who could take at least one statement from the OP and show how it was in error. But liberals, as we define them in America these days, don't do that do they? Nope. Attack PC. Attack conservatives. Attack Republicans. Attack any rightwing concept. But by gosh don't discuss the OP.

Sigh.

It would be helpful if you would learn to read. I challenged the OP to prove that I, a liberal,

am a Communist, because that is the central theme of the OP.

Go read it.

And I did.

Post #9.


Liberalism, socialism, communism, progressivism, collectivism, statism.....etc....

Reminds of Mexican food: the same few ingredients, just vary the amounts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As usual [MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION]

You fucking cop & paste shit all the time.

Amazon review has your first paragraph verbatim. Get an original thought you goon.

All of the rest of your post is just copy & paste regurgitation. You act like you are some cultured "rare animal" conservative, but you are unable to create your own thoughts.

But nothing you can dispute, huh.


Thanks for the verification.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Retarded because you have no rebuttal. Redundant because it's the truth. Care to expound on your ad hominem a bit?

It was an attack on what you posted, not on you, because what you posted was irrelevant and meaningless,

aka, in the common language of the day,

retarded.

So in essence you attacked my argument with no argument of your own. Calling it "retarded" without proving why. That's retarded, Carbine.

There is nothing to refute. You didn't make any point, let alone a relevant one. JFK supported the space program? So? That makes him what? A conservative?

What. was. your. point????

 

[Liberal]

As usual [MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION]

You fucking cop & paste shit all the time.

Amazon review has your first paragraph verbatim. Get an original thought you goon.

All of the rest of your post is just copy & paste regurgitation. You act like you are some cultured "rare animal" conservative, but you are unable to create your own thoughts.

But nothing you can dispute, huh.


Thanks for the verification.

Why should anyone even engage you in an adult discussion when you can't even write your own ideas?

 

[Sallow]

Eyah..

That explains FDR, Truman, LBJ and JFK, how exactly?

Heck..I'll throw in Eisenhower..because he was pretty liberal too.

That basically shoots down your thread..

Bang bang.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Rabid Rightie defines Liberals as commies.

SOP.

John Birch died and was resurrected as Ron Paul, who sent his only begotten son to deliver us from evil.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have long argued the point that the modern American liberal aka leftist aka progressive aka statist aka political class is:

1. Incapable of focusing on a concept or principle.

2. Will instead focus on the messenger or find something or somebody else to criticize, accuse, ridicule, or demonize.

3. Cannot defend their own values or beliefs with anything acceptable even to themselves, and therefore must make sure the discussion is derailed or shifted to something else.

Nothing I have seen in this thread shakes my faith in my opinion about that whatsoever.

You would think there would be at least one thinking liberal out of the whole group who could take at least one statement from the OP and show how it was in error. But liberals, as we define them in America these days, don't do that do they? Nope. Attack PC. Attack conservatives. Attack Republicans. Attack any rightwing concept. But by gosh don't discuss the OP.

Sigh.

It would be helpful if you would learn to read. I challenged the OP to prove that I, a liberal,

am a Communist, because that is the central theme of the OP.

Go read it.

And I did.

Post #9.


Liberalism, socialism, communism, progressivism, collectivism, statism.....etc....

Reminds of Mexican food: the same few ingredients, just vary the amounts.

By that logic you're a Nazi because you're a conservative. Nazism and conservatism are just the political right in varying amounts.

 

[BlindBoo]

Rabid Rightie defines Liberals as commies.

SOP.

John Birch died and was resurrected as Ron Paul, who sent his only begotten son to deliver us from evil.

All Hail the Paul.......

 

[Destroyer2]

JFK Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

Wanna take a stab at the challenge in post #9?

Don't be afraid.

Better challenge.

If Communists and Liberals are one and the same, why would the Communist Lee Harvey Oswald take into account his political views when deciding to kill the Liberal JFK?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Repeating one more time, in the context of the liberal community's response to the OP, (and elsewhere):

So you too reinforce my belief that modern day American liberals are incapable of focusing on and discussing a principle, concept, or conviction. Their ONLY argument will be ad hominem, partisan, ridiculing or denigrating or demonizing some individual or group and, more often than not, they will throw out red herrings or straw men in an attempt to change the subject to something they don't have to defend but can cheerfully attack.

The thing that mystifies me, is that they don't appear to be embarrassed by this.
__________________

The OP claimed that liberalism = Communism. Do you really feel that a statement that profoundly ignorant needs to be refuted,

especially since there was no evidence offered to support it?

A baseless opinion does not require factual refutation, does it?

If I say 'Conservatism = Nazism' and offer nothing to support that opinion, does it magically become unrefuted fact merely because no one offers evidence to the contrary?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rabid Rightie defines Liberals as commies.

SOP.

John Birch died and was resurrected as Ron Paul, who sent his only begotten son to deliver us from evil.

All Hail the Paul.......

By the logic of the OP, Ron Paul is an Islamic extremist because of his softness on going to war against Islamic extremism.

That would of course make all of Ron Paul's supporters specifically, and most paleo-conservative types in general,

also Islamic extremists.

Maybe some of them could come into this thread and argue with PC about her characterization of them.

 

[Destroyer2]

Socialism <------- Liberalism ------- Centrism ------- Conservatism -------> Fascism

Notice how there are very distinct differences between all 5 of these ideologies.
Notice how you can subscribe to different ideas of each ideology (for example, you can be socially liberal but economically conservative).
Notice how politics are not black and white as the OP seems to be suggesting.

 

[Pheonixops]

Okay my children, she says with arrogance dripping with condescension, let me show you how it is done.

The OP ends with this sentence:

Liberalism: seeking evil in America the way pigs seek truffles.

While I agree that modern day American liberals do embrace Marxist principles (i.e. communism) to an alarming degree, I do not believe that liberals seek evil.

From what I have observed over my increasingly long life, modern day American liberals have a view of what a perfect world would be, however fuzzy that view is in the dark glass they see through. Liberals see themselves as smarter, more just, more compassionate, more righteous, nicer, and better people than any other, and that is their justification.

And they look to an ever larger, more encompassing, more authoritarian government to produce that more perfect world and are unwilling or incapable of seeing that more evil than good comes from that.

And that is not the same thing as seeking evil.

I know that you may be generalizing or over simplifying above, but I am a modern Liberal and I don't think that I prefer any Marxist or communist ideology any more than so-called conservatives do, I also do not want a more encompassing, more authoritarian government , than any so-called conservatives who have actually embraced and advocated the above.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As usual [MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION]

You fucking cop & paste shit all the time.

Amazon review has your first paragraph verbatim. Get an original thought you goon.

All of the rest of your post is just copy & paste regurgitation. You act like you are some cultured "rare animal" conservative, but you are unable to create your own thoughts.

But nothing you can dispute, huh.


Thanks for the verification.

Why should anyone even engage you in an adult discussion when you can't even write your own ideas?

Still nothing, huh.


Try the post #9 challenge.....you can write your own ideas.
Have any?

 

[PoliticalChic]

JFK Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

Wanna take a stab at the challenge in post #9?

Don't be afraid.

Better challenge.

If Communists and Liberals are one and the same, why would the Communist Lee Harvey Oswald take into account his political views when deciding to kill the Liberal JFK?

So....how come you guys will do anything to avoid post #9?


Must be a reason.....

 

[Destroyer2]

Heck, let's even look at some definitions if you're still not convinced:

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.

Hold on, wait a minute. Did I just read free trade and private property in there? That's definitely not part of socialism.

Now let's look at socialism:

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

I don't think I've seen liberals talking about how all industries should be owned by the community. Like, at all.

 

[ClosedCaption]

As usual [MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION]

You fucking cop & paste shit all the time.

Amazon review has your first paragraph verbatim. Get an original thought you goon.

All of the rest of your post is just copy & paste regurgitation. You act like you are some cultured "rare animal" conservative, but you are unable to create your own thoughts.

HOLY SHIT!!! Shes finally been caught Red Handed

 

[Pheonixops]

Since when did he try to implement socialized healthcare? I freaking love JFK... he had more of a head on his shoulders than Obama does, no pun intended.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXUJErr_vfo]JFK'S "HEALTH CARE" SPEECH FROM MADISON SQUARE GARDEN (MAY 20, 1962) - YouTube[/ame]

Get a clue dimwit, his "Medicare" bill was defeated by the Senate in 1962. So while he tried, he failed. Thus no implementation. His form of Medicare was not socialist either. The cost at the time was simply too steep, which was around $600 million at the time.

How so? Do you think that Medicare and Medicaid are socialist programs?