Lies and Hypocrisy Are Essential Components of Liberalism

[regent]

The difference between progressivism and communism is that communism was revolutionary marxism and progressivism is evolutionary marxism.

Unfortunately, our educational system is such that the history of such movements has been largely untaught.

So the progressives who won women the right to vote did so as just one step on their way to Marxism?

I wonder how many women would be willing to give their right to vote back in order to turn that train around?

Giving a vote in federal elections to non-freeholders, male or female, was a big step in the progressive Marxist direction.

Extend the franchise to people who have nothing to lose, they'll vote themselves all the money in the treasury.

The power of the people was certainly a fear of the framers, but it hasn't worked out that way. Corporation money spent wisely can convince many people to vote against their own best interests, but maybe some Americans have a gut feeling about the need for business and industry and have no desire to kill off the goose. In any case, America started out liberal and continues to be more liberal with the passage of the centuries.

 

[Avatar4321]

Do you make up your own definitions? If progrssivism is Marxism, can you then define Marxism?

The difference between progressivism and communism is that communism was revolutionary marxism and progressivism is evolutionary marxism.

Unfortunately, our educational system is such that the history of such movements has been largely untaught.

So the progressives who won women the right to vote did so as just one step on their way to Marxism?

I wonder how many women would be willing to give their right to vote back in order to turn that train around?

No. They simply coopted the already trending women's movement to decieve people as usual.

BTW women had the right to vote at the time of the revolution. It was taken from them by scared politicians because they were voting for the "wrong" people.

Tell me, has anyone asked women to give up their right to vote? No. Then why do you feel the need to try to scare people? Oh yeah, because you're a progressive and you decieve people.

 

[bripat9643]

Extend the franchise to people who have nothing to lose, they'll vote themselves all the money in the treasury.

And deny a voice to people who have nothing to lose and enjoy the soaring crime rates, riots and eventual revolt.

Way to really think it through Dawkins.

Your theory that people commit crime because they can't vote is idiotic. Since when do criminals make a habit of voting?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

So the progressives who won women the right to vote did so as just one step on their way to Marxism?

I wonder how many women would be willing to give their right to vote back in order to turn that train around?

Giving a vote in federal elections to non-freeholders, male or female, was a big step in the progressive Marxist direction.

Extend the franchise to people who have nothing to lose, they'll vote themselves all the money in the treasury.

The power of the people was certainly a fear of the framers, but it hasn't worked out that way. Corporation money spent wisely can convince many people to vote against their own best interests, but maybe some Americans have a gut feeling about the need for business and industry and have no desire to kill off the goose. In any case, America started out liberal and continues to be more liberal with the passage of the centuries.

Well, it's certain that the power of stupid people in large groups was a fear of the framers. Hence, they created al sorts of checks and balances to the federal power, one of which being that the franchise in federal elections only extended to people who had some of that "skin in the game", that we have heard about in the somewhat recent past.

 

[Ernie S.]

I've been saying this for years. You can't be a liberal/progressive without being a no-good, low-down, two-faced liar.

Lies and Hypocrisy Are Essential Components of Liberalism - Kurt Schlichter - Page full

Recent events once again demonstrate that there is no point arguing with liberals. Reason, facts, truth – these bourgeois concepts mean nothing to the adherents of progressivism. You are never going to change the mind of someone who believes in nothing except the imperative of his own absolute power. You simply have to defeat him.

Progressivism is not a coherent ideology so much as a purpose – to control every aspect of our lives. It is about consolidating progressive power. Nothing else matters. That includes the truth.

This is why we see YouTube videos of Harry Reid, Joe Biden and Barack Obama waxing eloquently, while in the minority, about the moral necessity of the preserving the filibuster that they just shot through the forehead when in the majority.

This is what led to an agreement ensuring that a power that explicitly states its intention to reboot the Holocaust, once it finishes hanging all its gays, will be able to create the means to do so.

This is the reason the President repeated dozens of times that if you like your health plan and your doctor you can keep them even though he knew this to be an outright lie.

Progressivism is not about principles but necessity. Yesterday, the left needed the filibuster to bar conservative judges. Today, it needs to pack courts with allies who will rule in whatever way progressives need, so the filibuster goes. ​

Do you ever think before you post (can you think)? As a troll, you're a failure. Simply because the echo chamber rewards you is no measure.

Consider (not you birpat, it's obvious you won't) that the author of the OP has never posted anything of substance. If he has someone I'm sure will search all of his posts/threads and prove me wrong. His entire body of work can be diagrammed in this way:

"Ain't (Obama, liberals, progressives, blacks, immigrants, women, Democrats) awful". The guy(?) has never posted anything original, thought provoking or interesting. I'm not sure he is filled with hate for everyone who holds opinions s/he cannot understand but what is clear is s/he refuses to consider any opinion which conflicts with the dogma s/he holds close.

S/he is the archetype for the willfully ignorant set.

So you have nothing original, thought provoking or interesting to add and mask it with a claim that the OP has nothing original, thought provoking or interesting?

OK. Great job! I'm impressed as hell.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I've been saying this for years. You can't be a liberal/progressive without being a no-good, low-down, two-faced liar.

Lies and Hypocrisy Are Essential Components of Liberalism - Kurt Schlichter - Page full

Recent events once again demonstrate that there is no point arguing with liberals. Reason, facts, truth – these bourgeois concepts mean nothing to the adherents of progressivism. You are never going to change the mind of someone who believes in nothing except the imperative of his own absolute power. You simply have to defeat him.

Progressivism is not a coherent ideology so much as a purpose – to control every aspect of our lives. It is about consolidating progressive power. Nothing else matters. That includes the truth.

This is why we see YouTube videos of Harry Reid, Joe Biden and Barack Obama waxing eloquently, while in the minority, about the moral necessity of the preserving the filibuster that they just shot through the forehead when in the majority.

This is what led to an agreement ensuring that a power that explicitly states its intention to reboot the Holocaust, once it finishes hanging all its gays, will be able to create the means to do so.

This is the reason the President repeated dozens of times that if you like your health plan and your doctor you can keep them even though he knew this to be an outright lie.

Progressivism is not about principles but necessity. Yesterday, the left needed the filibuster to bar conservative judges. Today, it needs to pack courts with allies who will rule in whatever way progressives need, so the filibuster goes. ​

Do you ever think before you post (can you think)? As a troll, you're a failure. Simply because the echo chamber rewards you is no measure.

Consider (not you birpat, it's obvious you won't) that the author of the OP has never posted anything of substance. If he has someone I'm sure will search all of his posts/threads and prove me wrong. His entire body of work can be diagrammed in this way:

"Ain't (Obama, liberals, progressives, blacks, immigrants, women, Democrats) awful". The guy(?) has never posted anything original, thought provoking or interesting. I'm not sure he is filled with hate for everyone who holds opinions s/he cannot understand but what is clear is s/he refuses to consider any opinion which conflicts with the dogma s/he holds close.

S/he is the archetype for the willfully ignorant set.

So you have nothing original, thought provoking or interesting to add and mask it with a claim that the OP has nothing original, thought provoking or interesting?

OK. Great job! I'm impressed as hell.

Judging from my few interactions with the bitter old geez, that seems to be the way he rolls.

 

[manifold]

Extend the franchise to people who have nothing to lose, they'll vote themselves all the money in the treasury.

And deny a voice to people who have nothing to lose and enjoy the soaring crime rates, riots and eventual revolt.

Way to really think it through Dawkins.

Your theory that people commit crime because they can't vote is idiotic. Since when do criminals make a habit of voting?

My theory is that people with nothing to lose commit crime.

Have fun slaying your strawman though.

 

[bripat9643]

So the progressives who won women the right to vote did so as just one step on their way to Marxism?

I wonder how many women would be willing to give their right to vote back in order to turn that train around?

Giving a vote in federal elections to non-freeholders, male or female, was a big step in the progressive Marxist direction.

Extend the franchise to people who have nothing to lose, they'll vote themselves all the money in the treasury.

The power of the people was certainly a fear of the framers, but it hasn't worked out that way. Corporation money spent wisely can convince many people to vote against their own best interests, but maybe some Americans have a gut feeling about the need for business and industry and have no desire to kill off the goose. In any case, America started out liberal and continues to be more liberal with the passage of the centuries.

Actually, it has worked out that way. The parasite are running this country into the ground. 80% of our budget consists of transfer payments from the people who earned the money to people who didn't.

 

[bripat9643]

And deny a voice to people who have nothing to lose and enjoy the soaring crime rates, riots and eventual revolt.

Way to really think it through Dawkins.

Your theory that people commit crime because they can't vote is idiotic. Since when do criminals make a habit of voting?

My theory is that people with nothing to lose commit crime.

Have fun slaying your strawman though.

So if they can't vote they have nothing to lose? Implicit in your theory is the premise that the poor will use their vote to loot those who work for a living, and that gives them a reason for living. That's a pathetic view of human nature.

 

[regent]

Giving a vote in federal elections to non-freeholders, male or female, was a big step in the progressive Marxist direction.

Extend the franchise to people who have nothing to lose, they'll vote themselves all the money in the treasury.

The power of the people was certainly a fear of the framers, but it hasn't worked out that way. Corporation money spent wisely can convince many people to vote against their own best interests, but maybe some Americans have a gut feeling about the need for business and industry and have no desire to kill off the goose. In any case, America started out liberal and continues to be more liberal with the passage of the centuries.

Well, it's certain that the power of stupid people in large groups was a fear of the framers. Hence, they created al sorts of checks and balances to the federal power, one of which being that the franchise in federal elections only extended to people who had some of that "skin in the game", that we have heard about in the somewhat recent past.

Under the original Constitution states decided who should be able to vote, but since that time America has extended the vote to more Americans through amendments, again, America has become more liberal through the years.

 

[bripat9643]

The power of the people was certainly a fear of the framers, but it hasn't worked out that way. Corporation money spent wisely can convince many people to vote against their own best interests, but maybe some Americans have a gut feeling about the need for business and industry and have no desire to kill off the goose. In any case, America started out liberal and continues to be more liberal with the passage of the centuries.

Well, it's certain that the power of stupid people in large groups was a fear of the framers. Hence, they created al sorts of checks and balances to the federal power, one of which being that the franchise in federal elections only extended to people who had some of that "skin in the game", that we have heard about in the somewhat recent past.

Under the original Constitution states decided who should be able to vote, but since that time America has extended the vote to more Americans through amendments, again, America has become more liberal through the years.

The more liberal it has become, the worse our government has become and the further down the road to national bankruptcy we have traveled.

 

[manifold]

80% of our budget consists of transfer payments from the people who earned the money to people who didn't.

You don't believe that military personnel earn their paychecks?

 

[manifold]

Your theory that people commit crime because they can't vote is idiotic. Since when do criminals make a habit of voting?

My theory is that people with nothing to lose commit crime.

Have fun slaying your strawman though.

So if they can't vote they have nothing to lose? Implicit in your theory is the premise that the poor will use their vote to loot those who work for a living, and that gives them a reason for living. That's a pathetic view of human nature.

More strawman fun. yippee!

 

[bripat9643]

80% of our budget consists of transfer payments from the people who earned the money to people who didn't.

You don't believe that military personnel earn their paychecks?

Yes, I do. That's why I said 80% rather than 100%.

 

[bripat9643]

My theory is that people with nothing to lose commit crime.

Have fun slaying your strawman though.

So if they can't vote they have nothing to lose? Implicit in your theory is the premise that the poor will use their vote to loot those who work for a living, and that gives them a reason for living. That's a pathetic view of human nature.

More strawman fun. yippee!

Then explain the connection between crime and the right to vote. We're all dying to hear your theory.

 

[TooTall]

Why are you for activist Judges that make their own law, rather than congress?

What making of their own laws are you referring to?

Supreme Court Justice Roberts off the top of my head, there are many more than just this one, who rewrote the ACA from a mandate to a tax. He did this based on his personal preferences not the law, that states that mandates are unconstitutional.

Judicial activism occurs when judges fail to apply the Constitution or laws impartially according to their original public meaning, regardless of the outcome, or do not follow binding precedent of a higher court and instead decide the case based on personal preference. The proper measure is not whether a judge votes to uphold or strike down a statute in any given case. Adhering to an original understanding of the law is the only way to consistently “minimize or eliminate the judge’s biases.” At times, this means that judges must strike down laws that offend the Constitution.

Roberts and the court ruled in favor of the argument made by the Obama Justice Department lawyers defining the ACA as a TAX. They changed their tactic after realizing they were going to lose.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

The power of the people was certainly a fear of the framers, but it hasn't worked out that way. Corporation money spent wisely can convince many people to vote against their own best interests, but maybe some Americans have a gut feeling about the need for business and industry and have no desire to kill off the goose. In any case, America started out liberal and continues to be more liberal with the passage of the centuries.

Well, it's certain that the power of stupid people in large groups was a fear of the framers. Hence, they created al sorts of checks and balances to the federal power, one of which being that the franchise in federal elections only extended to people who had some of that "skin in the game", that we have heard about in the somewhat recent past.

Under the original Constitution states decided who should be able to vote, but since that time America has extended the vote to more Americans through amendments, again, America has become more liberal through the years.

No, America has become more socialistic. There's a difference.

In any case, the franchise for federal candidates was originally extended only to freeholders, then wiped out by the 14th Amendment, under Section 2. Voting for state politicians had no such restrictions, not even for women.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I've been saying this for years. You can't be a liberal/progressive without being a no-good, low-down, two-faced liar.

Lies and Hypocrisy Are Essential Components of Liberalism - Kurt Schlichter - Page full

Recent events once again demonstrate that there is no point arguing with liberals. Reason, facts, truth – these bourgeois concepts mean nothing to the adherents of progressivism. You are never going to change the mind of someone who believes in nothing except the imperative of his own absolute power. You simply have to defeat him.

Progressivism is not a coherent ideology so much as a purpose – to control every aspect of our lives. It is about consolidating progressive power. Nothing else matters. That includes the truth.

This is why we see YouTube videos of Harry Reid, Joe Biden and Barack Obama waxing eloquently, while in the minority, about the moral necessity of the preserving the filibuster that they just shot through the forehead when in the majority.

This is what led to an agreement ensuring that a power that explicitly states its intention to reboot the Holocaust, once it finishes hanging all its gays, will be able to create the means to do so.

This is the reason the President repeated dozens of times that if you like your health plan and your doctor you can keep them even though he knew this to be an outright lie.

Progressivism is not about principles but necessity. Yesterday, the left needed the filibuster to bar conservative judges. Today, it needs to pack courts with allies who will rule in whatever way progressives need, so the filibuster goes. ​

Do you ever think before you post (can you think)? As a troll, you're a failure. Simply because the echo chamber rewards you is no measure.

Consider (not you birpat, it's obvious you won't) that the author of the OP has never posted anything of substance. If he has someone I'm sure will search all of his posts/threads and prove me wrong. His entire body of work can be diagrammed in this way:

"Ain't (Obama, liberals, progressives, blacks, immigrants, women, Democrats) awful". The guy(?) has never posted anything original, thought provoking or interesting. I'm not sure he is filled with hate for everyone who holds opinions s/he cannot understand but what is clear is s/he refuses to consider any opinion which conflicts with the dogma s/he holds close.

S/he is the archetype for the willfully ignorant set.

As I said in another post: You know how you can tell a liberal/progressive/Marxist is lying? Their lips are moving.

You didn't fail to prove me right.

Oh your right, all right, far far far to the right of mainstream Americans. You're also an asshole and déclassé.

 

[hangover]

Lies and Hypocrisy Are Essential Components of Liberalism

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Doesn't know his left from his right........

 

[Wry Catcher]

I've been saying this for years. You can't be a liberal/progressive without being a no-good, low-down, two-faced liar.

Lies and Hypocrisy Are Essential Components of Liberalism - Kurt Schlichter - Page full

Recent events once again demonstrate that there is no point arguing with liberals. Reason, facts, truth – these bourgeois concepts mean nothing to the adherents of progressivism. You are never going to change the mind of someone who believes in nothing except the imperative of his own absolute power. You simply have to defeat him.

Progressivism is not a coherent ideology so much as a purpose – to control every aspect of our lives. It is about consolidating progressive power. Nothing else matters. That includes the truth.

This is why we see YouTube videos of Harry Reid, Joe Biden and Barack Obama waxing eloquently, while in the minority, about the moral necessity of the preserving the filibuster that they just shot through the forehead when in the majority.

This is what led to an agreement ensuring that a power that explicitly states its intention to reboot the Holocaust, once it finishes hanging all its gays, will be able to create the means to do so.

This is the reason the President repeated dozens of times that if you like your health plan and your doctor you can keep them even though he knew this to be an outright lie.

Progressivism is not about principles but necessity. Yesterday, the left needed the filibuster to bar conservative judges. Today, it needs to pack courts with allies who will rule in whatever way progressives need, so the filibuster goes. ​

Do you ever think before you post (can you think)? As a troll, you're a failure. Simply because the echo chamber rewards you is no measure.

Consider (not you birpat, it's obvious you won't) that the author of the OP has never posted anything of substance. If he has someone I'm sure will search all of his posts/threads and prove me wrong. His entire body of work can be diagrammed in this way:

"Ain't (Obama, liberals, progressives, blacks, immigrants, women, Democrats) awful". The guy(?) has never posted anything original, thought provoking or interesting. I'm not sure he is filled with hate for everyone who holds opinions s/he cannot understand but what is clear is s/he refuses to consider any opinion which conflicts with the dogma s/he holds close.

S/he is the archetype for the willfully ignorant set.

So you have nothing original, thought provoking or interesting to add and mask it with a claim that the OP has nothing original, thought provoking or interesting?

OK. Great job! I'm impressed as hell.

So you have nothing original, thought provoking or interesting to add, so default to an ad hominem attack.

See, the difference between my attack on bripat and your's on mine is I posted a premise, his opinions are dogmatic and he refused to consider and opinion which conflicts with the dogma he holds close. You on the other hand don't reference the premise an offer a counterpoint - you go directly to the attack.