How EVIL is liberalism anyway?

This is how evil liberalism is...

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election.

Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit
 
Bwahahaha! The obstructionist Dumbocrats are blocking legislation that would prevent a government shut down. Remember when Democrats whined and cried, pissed and moaned about the last government shut down that was the result of Republicans? It is astounding how stupid progressives are. They believe everything the Dumbocrat masters in Washington spoon feed them. Everything. They even believe that people like Barack Obama and Hitlery Clinton "care" about them. :lol:

Senate Democrats block legislation that would prevent government shutdown
 
Or as General MacArthur said: "For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
 
Or as General MacArthur said: "For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
Right? What a shame that it morphed into something so evil, so disgusting, and so oppressive.
 
CiG89MVWkAAx3-o.jpg
 
Or as General MacArthur said: "For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
Right? What a shame that it morphed into something so evil, so disgusting, and so oppressive.

Actually, what a shame that you choose to remain pig-ignorant about the terms you use.
 
Or as General MacArthur said: "For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
Right? What a shame that it morphed into something so evil, so disgusting, and so oppressive.
The core beliefs of liberalism do not change much, but what does change is the means and methods to achieve liberalism. Those means and methods are such things as the size of government.
 
Or as General MacArthur said: "For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
Right? What a shame that it morphed into something so evil, so disgusting, and so oppressive.
The core beliefs of liberalism do not change much, but what does change is the means and methods to achieve liberalism. Those means and methods are such things as the size of government.
Not true. The founders that you claim were soooooo "liberal" insisted on liberty. Including the right for everyone to be armed everywhere. Does that sound like the "core" of liberals today? Does it?

The founders hat you claim were sooooo "liberal" insisted on an extremely small and limited federal government. Does that sound like the "core" of liberals today? Be honest.
 
When the definitive post mortem of this dismal election is finally published, it should go something like this: The Republican establishment was foolish; the Democratic establishment was ruthless. The Republicans fumbled around incompetently and spinelessly in the face of an unforeseen challenge; the Democrats willfully and intentionally did all they could to carry a corrupt politician over the finish line, forcing the American public to choose between one known liar and another. Let’s review the facts:
  • The FBI continues to investigate Hillary Clinton’s maybe-criminal abuse of the Clinton Foundation as a front for systematic influence-peddling and her maybe-criminal mishandling of our nation’s secrets. Neither of these scandals is new. They both predate the launch of her presidential campaign.
  • Questions have swirled around the Clinton Foundation since Hillary was confirmed as secretary of state. Damaging evidence of outright influence-peddling — including evidence of large-scale donations made to the foundation as the State Department considered a crucial uranium deal — broke less than two weeks after her campaign announcement.
  • On April 23, 2015, the New York Times published an extraordinary story detailing the amount of money that was funneled to the Clinton Foundation (and to Bill Clinton directly) as the State Department considered whether to sign off on the sale of “one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States” to a Russian-controlled corporation. The chairman of the corporation donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian investment bank promoting Uranium One stock paid Bill Clinton a whopping $500,000 to give a speech in Moscow. The Clintons violated an agreement with the White House to “publicly identify all donors” by failing to disclose the Uranium One contributions. Hillary’s State Department approved the deal.
  • One month before the Uranium One story, as Clinton was preparing to announce her candidacy, the Times broke the news that still dominates the campaign today: Hillary “exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business.” Given the Clintons’ longstanding history of personal corruption, it should have been obvious to Democrats then that Hillary’s scandals were going to dog the party throughout the campaign, and, if she won, throughout her presidency. It would be a repeat of the 1990s, when an entire party was hijacked into relentlessly defending conduct that they would loudly condemn if it were attributed to any Republican.
  • Instead, the party did far more than merely acquiesce in Hillary’s decision to run. It did virtually everything it could to guarantee her victory. Scandal-free progressive politicians such as Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden stood aside. Superdelegates signed on with Hillary en masse. The DNC put its thumb on the scales to such an extent that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was ultimately fired to appease the Sanders holdouts. When angry Trump voters were accusing incompetent Republicans of “rigging” the system against their man, ruthless Democrats were were actually rigging the system for Hillary.
The Democratic Establishment Has Enabled Hillary’s Corruption at Every Turn
 

Forum List

Back
Top