Liberalism Is Not A Potential Threat To Our Republic...

[PoliticalChic]

...it is an existential threat.
And an immediate one.


1. Having taken control of the media, Liberals have prevented Americans from doing their due diligence in making judgments about candidates.

"Anti-Trump media: 91% coverage negative, 96% of donations to Hillary" Anti-Trump media: 91% coverage negative, 96% of donations to Hillary



2. Turning institutions of higher learning into Liberal seminaries, they've taught their captive audience to search for reasons to be offended the way pigs search for truffles. Any disagreement with the orthodoxy is akin to putting a target on your own back.

3. "Duke theology professor Paul Griffiths created a firestorm recently by criticizing time-consuming racial equity meetings [read 're-education camp] that, in his view, detracted from research, teaching, and study:
'It’ll be, I predict with confidence, intellectually flaccid: there’ll be bromides, clichés, and amen-corner rah-rahs in plenty. When (if) it gets beyond that, its illiberal roots and totalitarian tendencies will show.'

He was promptly accused, in response, of “racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry.” When professors stifle freedom of thought




4. As the Democrats/Liberals would never win another national election without the black vote, they have created an imaginary avalanche of 'racism' that only they can deal with. Real Americans have made the egregious error of allowing the aggrieved, the 'offended,' those who claim to have been insulted, their feeling hurt.....feelings....not actual damage in any way, to allow the term 'racist' to become a cudgel.

"...the way we were responding to the incidents was hurting rather than helping, because after every incident the black students would make public announcements about how hurt and afraid and rejected they felt, and then everyone would hatch plans to re-educate the whole university on issues of racism."
When professors stifle freedom of thought




5. Any who have examined 'incidents' referenced would see that more often than not, these incidents are total fabrications or.....have been perpetrated by the victims themselves!

"College ‘Diversity Council’ Admits to Posting Fake Racist Flyers On Campus"
College ‘Diversity Council’ Admits to Posting Fake Racist Flyers On Campus

"ISU professor arrested, accused of making up threats and attack" http://www.tribstar.com/news/isu-pr...cle_c7ca5b60-26d9-11e7-a35a-0f3c7868f652.html

"Ann Arbor woman pleads guilty to making up hate crime" Ann Arbor woman pleads guilty to making up hate crime



The Liberal strategy of divide and conquer, writ large.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Partisanshit has nothing to do with any strategy of divide and conquer does it love.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Partisanshit has nothing to do with any strategy of divide and conquer does it love.

Race, class and Marxism

FOR REVOLUTIONARY Marxists, there is an inextricable link between racism and capitalism. Capitalism is dependant on racism as both a source of profiteering, but more importantly as a means to divide and rule. Racism is necessary to drive a wedge between workers who otherwise have everything in common and every reason to ally and organize together, but who are perpetually driven apart to the benefit of the ruling class.

Every time the Liberal Elite Ruling Class gets the stupid masses to believe them, soon the country ends up in revolution and poverty. Today, as typical of liberalism Venezuela has its people hunting dogs for a meal, as the people there are miserable and poor.

United We Stand, Divided We Fall. Liberals don't teach this in school, because then their whole ideology goes up in smoke.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Partisanshit has nothing to do with any strategy of divide and conquer does it love.

Race, class and Marxism

FOR REVOLUTIONARY Marxists, there is an inextricable link between racism and capitalism. Capitalism is dependant on racism as both a source of profiteering, but more importantly as a means to divide and rule. Racism is necessary to drive a wedge between workers who otherwise have everything in common and every reason to ally and organize together, but who are perpetually driven apart to the benefit of the ruling class.

Every time the Liberal Elite Ruling Class gets the stupid masses to believe them, soon the country ends up in revolution and poverty. Today, as typical of liberalism Venezuela has its people hunting dogs for a meal, as the people there are miserable and poor.

United We Stand, Divided We Fall. Liberals don't teach this in school, because then their whole ideology goes up in smoke.

View attachment 126101

Sure, stick with that and everything will get better fer ya.

 

[Pogo]

Liberalism Is Not A Potential Threat To Our Republic...

...it is an existential threat.
And an immediate one.

Yeah, so "immediate" it's been running the country for two and a half centuries.

Any decade now, right? Hunker down!


The entire rest of your OP drivel-dump has nothing to do with Liberalism anyway. Other than a couple of references to elections, it doesn't even have anything to do with politics. Some of the time you piss away on these pointless exercises in narcissistic 'look mommy me make thread' could be better spent actually working to earn enough money to go buy a political science book.

SMH --- partisan hacks who can't be bothered to look up their own terms are a potential threat to our republic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Partisanshit has nothing to do with any strategy of divide and conquer does it love.

Who taught you that vulgarity is a requirement in common parlance?

Mother's Day is coming up....mull that over.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Unable to win the debate when the parameters include honesty and truth, the Liberal efforts to divide and conquer, to stoke up group animosity, to pull the scab off ancient grievances, devolves to fake news, hoaxes, and total fabrications.



6. Any who admit to recognizing the hoaxes, lies and scams, are immediately branded as engaging in “racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry.”

Make no mistake....Liberalism is aiming to morph America into a society with no free speech or free thought.
And it is shocking how far they have gotten based on same.




They "advance ideas like those of Australian philosopher Robert Simpson:

“However, once we extrapolate beyond the clear-cut cases, the question of what counts as free speech gets rather tricky,” so “I’d propose a third way: put free ‘speech’ as such to one side, and replace it with a series of more narrowly targeted expressive liberties.” He cites Canada as a good example but Canada has just enacted a law against Islamophobia, a law whose implications are engendering increasing alarm. Dr Simpson's article is a sound reason to believe that we should stick to opting for free speech in all but the most “clear-cut cases.” When professors stifle freedom of thought


Could anti-free speech politicians be elected to high office in this country?

Already done.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberalism Is Not A Potential Threat To Our Republic...

...it is an existential threat.
And an immediate one.

Yeah, so "immediate" it's been running the country for two and a half centuries.

Any decade now, right? Hunker down!


The entire rest of your OP drivel-dump has nothing to do with Liberalism anyway. Other than a couple of references to elections, it doesn't even have anything to do with politics. Some of the time you piss away on these pointless exercises in narcissistic 'look mommy me make thread' could be better spent actually working to earn enough money to go buy a political science book.

SMH --- partisan hacks who can't be bothered to look up their own terms are a potential threat to our republic.

"...so "immediate" it's been running the country for two and a half centuries..."


That most transparent of lies is easily defeated: you are trying to tie the founding of this nation to Progressives and Liberals.
Nothing could be further from the truth.



The Progressives/Liberals began mid-19th century in academia, based on what was the contemporary intelligentsia: German and/or those who studied in Germany.

1. The source of Progressive ideas was Germany, specifically the philosophy of Hegel, and this euro-thinking placed the ruler above the ruled: Germans have a history of accepting authoritarian rule.

a. " It was initially an academic phenomenon far removed from American politics. Particularly in the post–Civil War American university, professors — many of whom had obtained their graduate training in German universities, and whose thought reflected the “intoxicating effect of the undiluted Hegelian philosophy upon the American mind,” as progressive Charles Merriam once put it — articulated a critique of America that was as deep as it was wide. It began with a conscious rejection of the natural-rights principles of the American founding and the promotion of a new understanding of freedom, history, and the state in their stead. From this foundation, the progressives then criticized virtually every aspect of our traditional way of life, recommending reforms or “social reorganization” on a sweeping scale, the primary engine of which was to be a new, “positive” role for the state." http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


b. ' Hegel introduced a system for understanding the history of philosophy and the world itself, often described as a "progression in which each successive movement emerges as a resolution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement.'
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Wikipedia


c. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”(Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).

d. “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz,” the common good supersedes the private good. (quoted in Meinecke 1950, p. 51); cf. the 1920 Nazi Program.

e. The America “that [Teddy] Roosevelt dreamed of was always a sort of swollen Prussia, truculent without and regimented within,” wrote H.L.Mencken. He referred to Roosevelt as “Tammany Nietzsche.”

Neither Roosevelt gave a whit for the Constitution.



f. At least 20 of the first 26 Presidents had studied in Germany.
Goldberg, “Liberal Fascism,” p. 94




In short, Progressive/Liberal politics is not American....it is German.

Soooo....do I say 'good morning' to you ......or Sieg Heil?????

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberalism Is Not A Potential Threat To Our Republic...

...it is an existential threat.
And an immediate one.

Yeah, so "immediate" it's been running the country for two and a half centuries.

Any decade now, right? Hunker down!


The entire rest of your OP drivel-dump has nothing to do with Liberalism anyway. Other than a couple of references to elections, it doesn't even have anything to do with politics. Some of the time you piss away on these pointless exercises in narcissistic 'look mommy me make thread' could be better spent actually working to earn enough money to go buy a political science book.

SMH --- partisan hacks who can't be bothered to look up their own terms are a potential threat to our republic.

"...so "immediate" it's been running the country for two and a half centuries..."


That most transparent of lies is easily defeated: you are trying to tie the founding of this nation to Progressives and Liberals.
Nothing could be further from the truth.



The Progressives/Liberals began mid-19th century in academia, based on what was the contemporary intelligentsia: German and/or those who studied in Germany.

1. The source of Progressive ideas was Germany, specifically the philosophy of Hegel, and this euro-thinking placed the ruler above the ruled: Germans have a history of accepting authoritarian rule.

a. " It was initially an academic phenomenon far removed from American politics. Particularly in the post–Civil War American university, professors — many of whom had obtained their graduate training in German universities, and whose thought reflected the “intoxicating effect of the undiluted Hegelian philosophy upon the American mind,” as progressive Charles Merriam once put it — articulated a critique of America that was as deep as it was wide. It began with a conscious rejection of the natural-rights principles of the American founding and the promotion of a new understanding of freedom, history, and the state in their stead. From this foundation, the progressives then criticized virtually every aspect of our traditional way of life, recommending reforms or “social reorganization” on a sweeping scale, the primary engine of which was to be a new, “positive” role for the state." http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


b. ' Hegel introduced a system for understanding the history of philosophy and the world itself, often described as a "progression in which each successive movement emerges as a resolution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement.'
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Wikipedia


c. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”(Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).

d. “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz,” the common good supersedes the private good. (quoted in Meinecke 1950, p. 51); cf. the 1920 Nazi Program.

e. The America “that [Teddy] Roosevelt dreamed of was always a sort of swollen Prussia, truculent without and regimented within,” wrote H.L.Mencken. He referred to Roosevelt as “Tammany Nietzsche.”

Neither Roosevelt gave a whit for the Constitution.



f. At least 20 of the first 26 Presidents had studied in Germany.
Goldberg, “Liberal Fascism,” p. 94




In short, Progressive/Liberal politics is not American....it is German.

Soooo....do I say 'good morning' to you ......or Sieg Heil?????

Of course Liberalism is a threat to your twisted vision of what America should be.

Hitler hated the Liberals too!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Liberalism Is Not A Potential Threat To Our Republic...

...it is an existential threat.
And an immediate one.

Yeah, so "immediate" it's been running the country for two and a half centuries.

Any decade now, right? Hunker down!


The entire rest of your OP drivel-dump has nothing to do with Liberalism anyway. Other than a couple of references to elections, it doesn't even have anything to do with politics. Some of the time you piss away on these pointless exercises in narcissistic 'look mommy me make thread' could be better spent actually working to earn enough money to go buy a political science book.

SMH --- partisan hacks who can't be bothered to look up their own terms are a potential threat to our republic.

The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia

The Road to Serfdom (German: Der Weg zur Knechtschaft) is a book written between 1940 and 1943 by Austrian British economist and philosopher Friedrich von Hayek, in which he "[warns] of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning."[1] He further argues that the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual. Hayek challenged the general view among British academics that fascism (including National Socialism) was a capitalist reaction against socialism. He argued that fascism, National Socialism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and empowering the state over the individual.

Liberals cant think for themselves, which is why you see them parroting what comes from the liberal talking points. They want so much to be serfs, and have the ruling elites do their thinking for them. Liberalism is a mental disorder of the Nth Degree.

Moonbattery: Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder

Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.

 

[Pogo]

That most transparent of lies is easily defeated: you are trying to tie the founding of this nation to Progressives and Liberals.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Indeed nothing could. I said nothing about "Progressives" who wouldn't appear until over a century later. But your desperation to insert points I never made is further instructive and a shining example both of your abject ignorance of the terms you (and only you) inject with no idea what they mean, as well as your blatant inherent dishonesty.

As to that term I actually did engage --- narrates Wiki:

>> Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

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,[11] 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.

Prominent revolutionaries in the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule.<<​

PoliSci 101, introductory level. Go forth and learn it before you dig yourself even deeper.


So no, Liberalism is not "a threat" to this republic --- it created this republic, madam, if you can keep it. Which I see you're pulling out all the stops to avoid.

 

[Pogo]

Liberalism Is Not A Potential Threat To Our Republic...

...it is an existential threat.
And an immediate one.

Yeah, so "immediate" it's been running the country for two and a half centuries.

Any decade now, right? Hunker down!


The entire rest of your OP drivel-dump has nothing to do with Liberalism anyway. Other than a couple of references to elections, it doesn't even have anything to do with politics. Some of the time you piss away on these pointless exercises in narcissistic 'look mommy me make thread' could be better spent actually working to earn enough money to go buy a political science book.

SMH --- partisan hacks who can't be bothered to look up their own terms are a potential threat to our republic.

The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia

The Road to Serfdom (German: Der Weg zur Knechtschaft) is a book written between 1940 and 1943 by Austrian British economist and philosopher Friedrich von Hayek, in which he "[warns] of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning."[1] He further argues that the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual. Hayek challenged the general view among British academics that fascism (including National Socialism) was a capitalist reaction against socialism. He argued that fascism, National Socialism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and empowering the state over the individual.

Liberals cant think for themselves, which is why you see them parroting what comes from the liberal talking points. They want so much to be serfs, and have the ruling elites do their thinking for them. Liberalism is a mental disorder of the Nth Degree.

Moonbattery: Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder

Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.

Maybe the two of you could pool your resources to go buy that book.

Look for it in the "Clues" section.

This post above, and the OP of this thread, are exactly why I always tell new arrivals here to "bring hip boots". Hard to believe y'all atually think anybody buys this bullshit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Partisanshit has nothing to do with any strategy of divide and conquer does it love.

Who taught you that vulgarity is a requirement in common parlance?

Mother's Day is coming up....mull that over.

I think he might have picked it up from you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That most transparent of lies is easily defeated: you are trying to tie the founding of this nation to Progressives and Liberals.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Indeed nothing could. I said nothing about "Progressives" who wouldn't appear until over a century later. But your desperation to insert points I never made is further instructive and a shining example both of your abject ignorance of the terms you (and only you) inject with no idea what they mean, as well as your blatant inherent dishonesty.

As to that term I actually did engage --- narrates Wiki:

>> Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

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,[11] 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.

Prominent revolutionaries in the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule.<<​

PoliSci 101, introductory level. Go forth and learn it before you dig yourself even deeper.

Oooo.....you didn't like it when I put you in your place,huh?

Well....I'll have to do it again.


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.

Now....which 'Liberals' today espouse individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Certainly not the socialists/communists known as the Democrat Party


2. America was founded by classical liberals....based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Modern Liberals, the scion of communism and socialism, based their views on the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.




3. This would be a fine occasion to remind all that the above charge: "They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited"... President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013



....exactly the hallmark of every totalitarian political view:

Communism, Nazism, Liberalism, socialism, Progressivism, and fascism.




How ya' like that, old timer?????

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

That most transparent of lies is easily defeated: you are trying to tie the founding of this nation to Progressives and Liberals.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Indeed nothing could. I said nothing about "Progressives" who wouldn't appear until over a century later. But your desperation to insert points I never made is further instructive and a shining example both of your abject ignorance of the terms you (and only you) inject with no idea what they mean, as well as your blatant inherent dishonesty.

As to that term I actually did engage --- narrates Wiki:

>> Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

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,[11] 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.

Prominent revolutionaries in the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule.<<​

PoliSci 101, introductory level. Go forth and learn it before you dig yourself even deeper.


So no, Liberalism is not "a threat" to this republic --- it created this republic, madam, if you can keep it. Which I see you're pulling out all the stops to avoid.

You are so full of shit, you liberal retard(redundant statement) just wants to follow that Road to Serfdom. Shame all liberals think the same way, see picture below.
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law, and emphasizes economic freedoms found in economic liberalism which is also called free market capitalism.[1]

Social liberalism - Wikipedia

Social liberalism is a political ideology that believes individual liberty requires a level of social justice. Like classical liberalism, social liberalism endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, and education.[1][2][3] Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. No one who loves America and the Constitution can ever support Democrats/Liberals or whatever they call themselves today.

As I said, anti-free speech Liberal Fascists have actually place one on the Supreme Court.




The country took a bullet in living under Barack Hussein Obama, who placed an anti-freedom apparatchik on the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan



"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."


If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia




If you voted Democrat, you voted for this.

 

[Pogo]

"Liberal fascists"

The nadir of intentional ignorance --- trying to twist a term that makes one nervous, into the opposite of itself. George Orwell saw it coming; the process of holding --- or claiming to hold --- two mutually contradictory concepts in one's head while simultaneously believing both of them, which is a paradox. And a manifestation of the psychotic act of self-delusion.

Lotta that going around I understand. Why, no one knows. Apparently there walk among us those who are so gullible they'll claim to believe a paradox if it spares them the drudgery of actual thought.

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.

Ah yes, and then blaming somebody else for their own self-delusion and ignorance. A worthy reminder.

There's no such thing as "classical" Liberalism. Liberalism is LIberalism, period. Only a hack like Jonah Goldberg comes up with a nonsensical dead-end adjective so that he can then present his gullible marks with a term that means its own opposite.

"Cold heat". "Bright night". "Dry water".

And they suck it up obediently, being lapdogs at heart. "Yes Master, may I have another oxymoron"? All because they can't be bothered to use an established term correctly. And all because the original term --- where a top-down authoritarianism does not exist, which means they personally cannot have the control --- scares the shit out of them. So they try to turn it inside-out --- while still believing the original definition, as "classical".

I've always said, this board needs a resident shrink.

/thread

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Liberal fascists"

The nadir of intentional ignorance --- trying to twist a term that makes one nervous, into the opposite of itself. George Orwell saw it coming; the process of holding --- or claiming to hold --- two mutually contradictory concepts in one's head while simultaneously believing both of them, which is a paradox. And a manifestation of the psychotic act of self-delusion.

Lotta that going around I understand. Why, no one knows. Apparently there walk among us those who are so gullible they'll claim to believe a paradox if it spares them the drudgery of actual thought.

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.

Ah yes, and then blaming somebody else for their own self-delusion and ignorance. A worthy reminder.

There's no such thing as "classical" Liberalism. Liberalism is LIberalism, period. Only a hack like Jonah Goldberg comes up with a nonsensical dead-end adjective so that he can then present his gullible marks with a term that means its own opposite.

"Cold heat". "Bright night". "Dry water".

And they suck it up obediently, being lapdogs at heart. "Yes Master, may I have another oxymoron"? All because they can't be bothered to use an established term correctly. And all because the original term --- where a top-down authoritarianism does not exist, which means they personally cannot have the control --- scares the shit out of them. So they try to turn it inside-out --- while still believing the original definition, as "classical".

I've always said, this board needs a resident shrink.

/thread

Yup....you're a Liberal Fascist.

Your kind opposed free speech, the basis of the Constitution, and bends the neck and the knee to the collective.


You can shorten it to simply Fascist if you like.

 

[BlindBoo]

The real threat you expose is partisan extremism as the greatest threat to the Republic.

Now hold hands and start singing Kumb........

 

[Fenton Lum]

Partisanshit has nothing to do with any strategy of divide and conquer does it love.

Who taught you that vulgarity is a requirement in common parlance?

Mother's Day is coming up....mull that over.

My mom knows what stupidity partisanshit is.